| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
 |
|
| LOCATING HYPERBOREA - INTRODUCTION It was almost 25 years ago when I first encountered Mick Harper. After reading his book, The History of Britain Revealed (THOBR), I was convinced the man was the first true genius I had met in my life (and likely to be the only true genius I would ever meet---a prediction that has held true all these years). I was determined not to let the opportunity to learn from him pass me by. |
Imagine what it's like for me. I never get to meet geniuses.
| Intrigued by certain hints in the closing pages of THOBR, I began to pester its author for more information. He refused all queries. But I kept at it. Finally, he relented and responded not with an answer or any new information. He responded with a question of his own. Or rather: He responded with a task that would set me off on a kind of "treasure hunt." |
This is only dimly remembered.
| Knowing of my interest in locating Graham Hancock's "Lost Civilization," (Atlantis by another name), he instructed me that my search for it should begin in an unlikely location. He asked me to look at a map of China. Specifically, a relief map or physical map of China. |
Now it's coming back.
| So that is what I did. And for the very first time, I saw what China truly looked like. |
But notice, nobody else doing it will notice it. You have to be primed.
| One of the amazing effects of the "treasure hunt" process is that it enables the participant to accomplish feats they would never otherwise be able to do. When normally we ponder mysteries, we do so completely in the dark. We don't know if there is anything thereabouts to be discovered. We reach, we grasp, we find nothing, and conclude there is nothing to be found. |
Actually that process rarely happens. People are quite intolerant when asked to take part in even the simplest Aristotelian Dialogue. "Just tell me the answer for fuck's sake." If you do, they say, "Oh, right, I see. Big deal. Here's something I heard the other day..."
| But, in the treasure hunt process, we are imparted with a kind of faith. A faith that the answer exists. We are being challenged by one who claims he knows, to share in that knowledge---in that discovery. And that changes everything. |
It's true, it does. But you have to set up an enormous infrastructure just to get (unusual) people to come along for the ride.
| Suddenly; the simple faith that there is an answer empowers us to find an answer. Now when we grasp and find nothing, we grasp again; for, this time, we know there is something out there to be had. This is why I was suddenly able see something in that map of China that I had never noted before. |
You are an unusual person.
| What I saw was that China looked for all the world to be an alluvial fan. Moreover; the nearby Himalayas were broken up by long running valleys that all turned and twisted toward that alluvial fan. I reported this to Mick and, pleased with my success (probably the only time I ever enjoyed a success with the various challenges Mick set out for me over the next year), he asked me to explain the phenomenon. |
You exaggerate.
| I did so. Telling him that it appeared that China was formed as the result of an unfathomable amount of water pouring out and over the Himalayas, perhaps catastrophically or perhaps over millions of years, or perhaps some combination of both. But that of course set up a new mystery and a new challenge. This time, Mick asked me a direct question; "Where did all that water in the Himalayas come from?" |
I don't remember that but it is true 'where the water came from' is critical because the answer can only be 'the world ocean' and it can't be the world ocean if there is only one world ocean.
| In subsequent years, Mick revealed to me his own answer to that question and, for decades, his answer has satisfied me---somewhat. That answer is expressed in Mick Harper's Split Level Ocean Paradigm (SLOP), which I shall have cause to discuss a little in subsequent posts. |
I reserve the right to defend my baby from kidnappers.
| Nevertheless; nearly 25 years after Mick put that question to me, I can now answer it for myself. For the water did not come from where Mick believed. Well....at least not in the manner that he believed. We are about to learn where that water, that flowed over the Himalayas, actually came from. |
The gloves are off. Though I am constrained by AEL rules about giving new theories all the support at one's command.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
LOCATING HYPERBOREA: PART I - S.L.O.P.
Mick Harper had long before noticed that China resembled an alluvial fan and that the Himalayas, near by, were shaped as though they had been carved out by a massive flow of water. And he had noticed a great many similar phenomena the world over.
Armed with these observations, Mick developed an original theory he referred to as the Split-Level Ocean theory. I later suggested he substitute "paradigm" for "theory," so as to have a clever little acronym for the concept that itself expresses the theory's principle idea. Since then, the theory has been known as SLOP: Split Level Ocean Paradigm. In brief, SLOP proposes that much of the world's geography can be attributed to the movement, the capture, and the flow of water. In academic circles, the study of this subject is known as Geohydrology: Though no geohydrologist has ever had an imagination of Mick's scale.
Nevertheless; conventional geohydrology acknowledges that, at various times throughout Earth's unfathomable geologic history, water has been present on land that is now dry and has been absent from land that is now submerged. Furthermore; as the result of simple rainfall, or of occasional, local catastrophic events, large volumes of water have sometimes accumulated at elevations above sea level and broken their basins to flow into sunken lands below.
For example; it is presently widely believed that the entire Mediterranean basin was once mostly dry land, sheltered from the ocean by a mountain range extended from Europe and Africa in the area of Gibraltar. Whatever rivers flowed into the Mediterranean Basin at the time, flowed into lakes (whether fresh or salty) that had no outlet to the ocean. The water in those terminal lakes presumably drained into underground aquifers via percolation or was evaporated by solar energy from their surfaces. This then is a kind of split-level ocean: Some significant measure of Earth's waters were, at that time, at different elevations. The Black Sea too is thought to have once been an isolated, terminal inland sea, but one at an elevation higher than the Atlantic.
But SLOP proposes something far more dramatic. Even suggesting the possibility that the entire Atlantic Ocean itself was, at one time, elevated high above the Pacific. Evidence that this was so not being limited to the fact that, outside of China, the entire Pacific Rim features no rivers that flow into the Pacific directly, which suggests that the vast Pacific was once largely encompassed by elevated land: Elevated land from which all drainage was toward an also elevated Atlantic.
These observations and their implications are real. However; Mick and his devotees (of which I am one) have struggled to identify the mechanisms by which entire oceans might have been isolated. Sealing off the Mediterranean is one thing but surrounding the entire Pacific with blockages is quite another (Mick's observations, by the way, suggest the Mediterranean Sea was actually once at a higher level than the Atlantic!). Shifts in the location of the poles have been proposed (a phenomenon supported by independent evidence) with the possibility that polar glaciation might be capable of completing these barriers where land and mountains were never present.
Nevertheless; none of these solutions have proven entirely satisfactory. They are accepted mostly because they seem the only way to account for how vast amounts of water might be captured and retained at elevations above sea level.
I have now come to believe that, if we scale back our ambitions, and do not set for ourselves the immediate task of isolating the world's largest ocean, a simpler explanation for most or all of Mick's observations may be identified. The problem to solve, at its core, is how to capture and retain water at high elevation: Elevations exceeding the altitude even of the tall Himalayas.
That problem itself seems challenging enough. Yet, surprisingly, it is a problem that nature has already solved.
Can you identify nature's solution?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| LOCATING HYPERBOREA: PART I - S.L.O.P. Mick Harper had long before noticed that China resembled an alluvial fan and that the Himalayas, near by, were shaped as though they had been carved out by a massive flow of water. And he had noticed a great many similar phenomena the world over. |
OK
| Armed with these observations, Mick developed an original theory he referred to as the Split-Level Ocean theory. I later suggested he substitute "paradigm" for "theory," so as to have a clever little acronym for the concept that itself expresses the theory's principle idea. |
I'm obliged.
| Since then, the theory has been known as SLOP: Split Level Ocean Paradigm. In brief, SLOP proposes that much of the world's geography can be attributed to the movement, the capture, and the flow of water. In academic circles, the study of this subject is known as Geohydrology: Though no geohydrologist has ever had an imagination of Mick's scale. |
They did not use it as a Prime Mover. Preferring something called, from memory, hydrostatics. Which allowed land to rise and fall. They treated the notion of continents drifting from side to side with the contempt it deserves.
| Nevertheless; conventional geohydrology acknowledges that, at various times throughout Earth's unfathomable geologic history, water has been present on land that is now dry and has been absent from land that is now submerged. |
They had to account for why a great deal of terrestrial geology--chalk and limestone for example--could only be formed by marine organisms falling to, and gradually accumulating on, the ocean floor.
| Furthermore; as the result of simple rainfall, or of occasional, local catastrophic events, large volumes of water have sometimes accumulated at elevations above sea level and broken their basins to flow into sunken lands below. |
I had no knowledge of this.
| For example; it is presently widely believed that the entire Mediterranean basin was once mostly dry land, sheltered from the ocean by a mountain range extended from Europe and Africa in the area of Gibraltar. Whatever rivers flowed into the Mediterranean Basin at the time, flowed into lakes (whether fresh or salty) that had no outlet to the ocean. The water in those terminal lakes presumably drained into underground aquifers via percolation or was evaporated by solar energy from their surfaces. This then is a kind of split-level ocean: Some significant measure of Earth's waters were, at that time, at different elevations. The Black Sea too is thought to have once been an isolated, terminal inland sea, but one at an elevation higher than the Atlantic. |
There are plenty of inland seas that are not at 'sea level'. All of them in fact. Usually higher, sometimes (like the Dead Sea) lower.
| But SLOP proposes something far more dramatic. Even suggesting the possibility that the entire Atlantic Ocean itself was, at one time, elevated high above the Pacific. Evidence that this was so not being limited to the fact that, outside of China, the entire Pacific Rim features no rivers that flow into the Pacific directly, which suggests that the vast Pacific was once largely encompassed by elevated land: Elevated land from which all drainage was toward an also elevated Atlantic. |
This is the critical insight. The notion that the world must have a single world ocean is just another application of the pernicious doctrine of 'uniformitarianism'.
| These observations and their implications are real. However; Mick and his devotees (of which I am one) have struggled to identify the mechanisms by which entire oceans might have been isolated. |
It is true this needed to be addressed before SLOP could be launched. It was the only part that required hard graft.
| Sealing off the Mediterranean is one thing but surrounding the entire Pacific with blockages is quite another (Mick's observations, by the way, suggest the Mediterranean Sea was actually once at a higher level than the Atlantic!). Shifts in the location of the poles |
... did not play a part. That arose from my attack on Ice Age theory. Though it later proved useful to SLOP.
Not as far as I knew. I came up with it newly minted at the time, though from what you say, I was not the first.
| (a phenomenon supported by independent evidence) |
It is obvious once you look at where and when 'Ice Ages' are reported but I know of no 'independent evidence'. Perhaps you could elucidate what this was as far as these pole-shifters were concerned.
| with the possibility that polar glaciation might be capable of completing these barriers where land and mountains were never present. |
They sealed off the bits ordinary SLOP mechanisms could not reach.
| Nevertheless; none of these solutions have proven entirely satisfactory. They are accepted mostly because they seem the only way to account for how vast amounts of water might be captured and retained at elevations above sea level. |
I have found them satisfactory or I would not have launched SLOP. What are your reservations?
| I have now come to believe that, if we scale back our ambitions, and do not set for ourselves the immediate task of isolating the world's largest ocean, a simpler explanation for most or all of Mick's observations may be identified. |
You would be hard pushed to have a Prime Mover Theory without the Prime Geographic Feature. The evidence that the Pacific was once 'an inland sea' is too cogent for it not to have been.
| The problem to solve, at its core, is how to capture and retain water at high elevation: Elevations exceeding the altitude even of the tall Himalayas. |
SLOP does not require oceanic water higher than the highest land. It requires oceanic water higher than the highest marine fossils.
| That problem itself seems challenging enough. Yet, surprisingly, it is a problem that nature has already solved. Can you identify nature's solution? |
I am not the best person to ask. In the circumstances.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | Sealing off the Mediterranean is one thing but surrounding the entire Pacific with blockages is quite another (Mick's observations, by the way, suggest the Mediterranean Sea was actually once at a higher level than the Atlantic!). Shifts in the location of the poles have been proposed |
Not as far as I knew. I came up with it newly minted at the time, though from what you say, I was not the first. |
Your mechanism for shifting the poles is wholly original. And though the field of hydrogeology theoretically exists, it hasn't amounted to much.
| (a phenomenon [pole shift] supported by independent evidence) |
It is obvious once you look at where and when 'Ice Ages' are reported but I know of no 'independent evidence'. Perhaps you could elucidate what this was as far as these pole-shifters were concerned. |
I mean only that the pole shift evidence is independent of SLOP. SLOP makes use of pole shifts but there's plenty of evidence for pole shifts that we (and others) have identified that isn't dependent on SLOP.
| [Polar glaciers] sealed off the bits ordinary SLOP mechanisms could not reach. |
Precisely. And it is the feasibility of this that I have always doubted.
| Nevertheless; none of these solutions have proven entirely satisfactory. |
I have found them satisfactory or I would not have launched SLOP. What are your reservations? |
Ice floats.
There's just no way I can see to seal off an ocean, top to bottom, with glaciers. Even the glacier over Antarctica gets ripped away wherever it meats the sea.
We have no examples of a glacier doing what we need it to do. Even the glacier over Greenland likely fails to touch bottom between landmasses (admittedly, I've not verified this but, if you were to do so, it would seal your argument!).
| I have now come to believe that, if we scale back our ambitions, and do not set for ourselves the immediate task of isolating the world's largest ocean, a simpler explanation for most or all of Mick's observations may be identified. |
You would be hard pushed to have a Prime Mover Theory without the Prime Geographic Feature. The evidence that the Pacific was once 'an inland sea' is too cogent for it not to have been. |
My purpose isn't to build a theory to explain the Pacific phenomenon. But I am looking to propose how vast amounts of water can be trapped at high elevations. Whether this eventually solves the Pacific problem remains to be seen. As I said; I'm recommending a scale-back of ambitions: Scaling back ambitions just far enough to account for China's alluvial fan.
| The problem to solve, at its core, is how to capture and retain water at high elevation: Elevations exceeding the altitude even of the tall Himalayas. |
SLOP does not require oceanic water higher than the highest land. It requires oceanic water higher than the highest marine fossils. |
By "elevations exceeding the altitude of the tall Himalayas," I do not necessarily mean higher than their highest peaks. I mean only that we've got to get water above that land, if it is going to drain down from it into China.
What's the easiest way to get a massive amount of water trapped over the Himalayas?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Ishmael wrote: | | I mean only that the pole shift evidence is independent of SLOP. SLOP makes use of pole shifts but there's plenty of evidence for pole shifts that we (and others) have identified that isn't dependent on SLOP. |
I hate to be over-proprietal but who are these 'others'? It is true the Poles shifted a minute but measurable distance when the 2004 Christmas tsunami in the Indian Ocean occurred but I'm not aware of theorists conjecturing it happens structurally.
[Polar glaciers] sealed off the bits ordinary SLOP mechanisms could not reach.
Precisely. And it is the feasibility of this that I have always doubted. Ice floats. There's just no way I can see to seal off an ocean, top to bottom, with glaciers. Even the glacier over Antarctica gets ripped away wherever it meats the sea. |
The only gap that needed filling in the north was the Bering Straits. I should think that ice blocks that off whenever there is a severe winter. In the south, the gap between Patagonia and the Antarctic Peninsula may not have been ice. The gap between Australia and Antarctica gets precisely filled by the South Pole, as evidenced by the Great Australian Bight. But I grant that it is all hands to the pump.
| We have no examples of a glacier doing what we need it to do. Even the glacier over Greenland likely fails to touch bottom between landmasses (admittedly, I've not verified this but, if you were to do so, it would seal your argument!). |
Then sealed it is. The Greenland ice sits on the sea bed. Greenland is only called 'land' because of the collar of seabed all round the 'coast' of Greenland that has been forced up by not having thousands of feet of ice bearing down on it. I trust your alternative explanation will account for this climatically impossible collar.
| My purpose isn't to build a theory to explain the Pacific phenomenon. |
Nor mine. It is used as evidence for my purpose, the adumbration of a new Prime Mover theory to replace Plate Tectonics. Nevertheless, you will have to account for the striking fact that the world's largest ocean doesn't have any large rivers running into it. (Not to mention having a twenty thousand mile perimeter of mountains.)
| But I am looking to propose how vast amounts of water can be trapped at high elevations. Whether this eventually solves the Pacific problem remains to be seen. As I said; I'm recommending a scale-back of ambitions: Scaling back ambitions just far enough to account for China's alluvial fan. |
OK
| The problem to solve, at its core, is how to capture and retain water at high elevation: Elevations exceeding the altitude even of the tall Himalayas. |
I look forward to it.
SLOP does not require oceanic water higher than the highest land. It requires oceanic water higher than the highest marine fossils.
By "elevations exceeding the altitude of the tall Himalayas," I do not necessarily mean higher than their highest peaks. I mean only that we've got to get water above that land, if it is going to drain down from it into China. |
OK
| What's the easiest way to get a massive amount of water trapped over the Himalayas? |
Ice?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | Ishmael wrote: | | I mean only that the pole shift evidence is independent of SLOP. SLOP makes use of pole shifts but there's plenty of evidence for pole shifts that we (and others) have identified that isn't dependent on SLOP. |
I hate to be over-proprietal but who are these 'others'? |
Relax. I'm just referring to Hapgood and company, as well as participants in our online discussions who have offered general input over the years.
The Greenland ice sits on the sea bed. |
With no gaps? No water flow beneath it from sea to sea? If so, then your mechanism can work. For sure.
| Nevertheless, you will have to account for the striking fact that the world's largest ocean doesn't have any large rivers running into it. |
No. I don't. It's not my topic. I mention SLOT by way of posing the question I present at the end of the post to which you are replying.
| What's the easiest way to get a massive amount of water trapped over the Himalayas? |
Ice? |
Nailed it.
New post coming shortly....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Ishmael wrote: | The Greenland ice sits on the sea bed.
With no gaps? No water flow beneath it from sea to sea? If so, then your mechanism can work. For sure. |
I didn't think there was any dispute that Greenland is securely tethered to the ocean floor. Leastways if it wasn't, we would have heard of US nuclear subs making their way underneath it by now.
It is true Greenland doesn't block off the Atlantic from the Arctic Ocean--it would be called something else if it did--but it would do the required job if it was shifted to the Bering Straits.
Nevertheless, you will have to account for the striking fact that the world's largest ocean doesn't have any large rivers running into it.
No. I don't. It's not my topic. I mention SLOT by way of posing the question I present at the end of the post to which you are replying. |
If you are proposing a different Prime Mover than SLOT, you have to account for everything. One of the merits--the only one--of Plate Tectonics is that it sorta kinda does. It's brilliantly protean.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | If you are proposing a different Prime Mover than SLOT, you have to account for everything. One of the merits--the only one--of Plate Tectonics is that it sorta kinda does. It's brilliantly protean. |
I am not. Not with Hyperborea. I may with another thesis of mine. But not this one.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
LOCATING HYPERBOREA PART II: Glacial Ice
The simplest means by which water can be captured and retained at high elevation is the very means by which nature presently does it: Freezing the water and allowing it to accumulate on mountaintops as glaciers. By this very means the Himalayas are today yet covered in water: Water in frozen form. Were all that water to suddenly melt---were the mountains suddenly subjected to higher temperatures---it would result in a flood throughout China and Bangladesh of a kind truly deserving of the word, "catastrophic."
And yet; that flood would hardly rise to the level of what the vast scale of the Chinese alluvial fan implies of floods there in the distant geologic past. Even presuming the water responsible for the Chinese landscape drained from the mountains over eons, the amount of water necessary to the task beggars the imagination. The ice caps known to the region today are entirely insufficient. What the Chinese landscape implies is that a glacial mass once sat over the Himalayas so vast as to dwarf the combined mass of every mountain glacier over the whole of the Earth.
Scientists tell us that, during the last ice age, vast glaciers did exist in Asia. However; though the Himalayas was then home to a mass of ice larger than what exists there today, that ice was disconnected from the primary Asian glacier, which was much farther to the north, and the Himalayan glacier failed to reach anything approaching the scale we need; even when the Earth is at its very coldest, the tallest mountains on Earth still cannot accumulate ice in quantities sufficient to carve out entire subcontinents.
We need a lot more ice than nature provides Himalayan latitudes, even in ice ages.
The solution, therefore, is to change the Himalayan latitudes.
If the shape of China implies the presence of ice over the Himalayas and Tibetan plateau of a volume known only ever to polar latitudes, then we have no choice but to conclude that the Himalayas and Tibetan plateau were once positioned at polar latitudes. In fact, presuming this to be so solves the other problem we have: How to transform the frozen ice, presumably once present over the highlands, into the liquid water responsible for carving out the landscape of the lowlands. We simply change the latitudes of the geography to what they are from what they were. All that ice moves then away from the pole to temperate climes, where soon it liquefies.
In short; water is made from ice by moving the north pole to its present location (or somewhere close to its present location) from an earlier location over the Himalayas: Maybe somewhere close to the Taklamakan Desert. That would do it. That would give us the ice needed in the right spot and also, once we move the pole, the water needed there too.
Frankly. It's the only way it can be done.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| LOCATING HYPERBOREA PART II: Glacial Ice The simplest means by which water can be captured and retained at high elevation is the very means by which nature presently does it: Freezing the water and allowing it to accumulate on mountaintops as glaciers. |
OK
| By this very means the Himalayas are today yet covered in water: Water in frozen form. Were all that water to suddenly melt---were the mountains suddenly subjected to higher temperatures---it would result in a flood throughout China and Bangladesh of a kind truly deserving of the word, "catastrophic." |
OK
| And yet; that flood would hardly rise to the level of what the vast scale of the Chinese alluvial fan implies of floods there in the distant geologic past. |
Not necessarily OK but do go on.
| Even presuming the water responsible for the Chinese landscape drained from the mountains over eons, the amount of water necessary to the task beggars the imagination. |
Definitely not OK. Alluvial fans are everywhere. They are all caused by 'the amount of water' draining into them over aeons.
| The ice caps known to the region today are entirely insufficient. |
Agreed.
| What the Chinese landscape implies is that a glacial mass once sat over the Himalayas so vast as to dwarf the combined mass of every mountain glacier over the whole of the Earth. |
SLOP does not claim China is an alluvial fan in the sense of being a river delta. It claims that China is a submarine alluvial fan. It is not caused by ice--except indirectly--but by aeons of rivers bringing fresh water from an extremely high source (the Himalayan massif) into a high level Pacific, which is necessary for the continuance of all oceans because of evaporation. (Even the limited amount of evaporation permitted under the New Hydrological Rules, I've forgotten the acronym.)
| Scientists tell us that, during the last ice age, vast glaciers did exist in Asia. However; though the Himalayas was then home to a mass of ice larger than what exists there today, that ice was disconnected from the primary Asian glacier, which was much farther to the north, and the Himalayan glacier failed to reach anything approaching the scale we need; even when the Earth is at its very coldest, the tallest mountains on Earth still cannot accumulate ice in quantities sufficient to carve out entire subcontinents. |
I quite agree.
| We need a lot more ice than nature provides Himalayan latitudes, even in ice ages. |
We certainly do. That's why we had to correct the orthodox Salt Cycle, if you recall.
| The solution, therefore, is to change the Himalayan latitudes. |
There is no requirement to change anything to my mind though I accept Himalayan latitudes have changed.
| If the shape of China implies the presence of ice over the Himalayas and Tibetan plateau of a volume known only ever to polar latitudes, then we have no choice but to conclude that the Himalayas and Tibetan plateau were once positioned at polar latitudes. |
Obviously I disagree with this.
| In fact, presuming this to be so solves the other problem we have: How to transform the frozen ice, presumably once present over the highlands, into the liquid water responsible for carving out the landscape of the lowlands. We simply change the latitudes of the geography to what they are from what they were. All that ice moves then away from the pole to temperate climes, where soon it liquefies. |
I accept you can use this for your own hypothesis but SLOP puts the cause and effect the other way round.
| In short; water is made from ice by moving the north pole to its present location (or somewhere close to its present location) from an earlier location over the Himalayas: Maybe somewhere close to the Taklamakan Desert. That would do it. That would give us the ice needed in the right spot and also, once we move the pole, the water needed there too. Frankly. It's the only way it can be done. |
In that case you are going to have to come up with a different mechanism for shifting poles than the one SLOP provides.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | In fact, presuming this to be so solves the other problem we have: How to transform the frozen ice, presumably once present over the highlands, into the liquid water responsible for carving out the landscape of the lowlands. We simply change the latitudes of the geography to what they are from what they were. All that ice moves then away from the pole to temperate climes, where soon it liquefies. |
I accept you can use this for your own hypothesis but SLOP puts the cause and effect the other way round. |
Cause and effect are still very much up for grabs. As you may have noticed, the Hyperborean Hypothesis has another means of melting polar icecaps---one that doesn't require us to first shift the latitudes.
| water is made from ice by moving the north pole to its present location (or somewhere close to its present location) from an earlier location over the Himalayas: Maybe somewhere close to the Taklamakan Desert. That would do it. That would give us the ice needed in the right spot and also, once we move the pole, the water needed there too. Frankly. It's the only way it can be done. | |
To be clear; what I meant here was that moving the pole to the Himalayan region is the only way to accumulate ice there of the volume needed. Moving the pole again is not the only way to melt the ice.
| ...you are going to have to come up with a different mechanism for shifting poles than the one SLOP provides. |
I have one. However (and this is very bad AE, I know), I currently believe that pole shifts have been actuated by two mechanisms (one of the mechanisms is SLOP). I reach this conclusion because the geological record indicates these pole shifts are of two distinct types.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
LOCATING HYPERBOREA PART II: Glacial Ice Continued....
It is true that the only way to put a polar ice cap over the Taklamakan Desert (or thereabouts) is to shift the pole itself over the Taklamakan Desert. Therefore; if we know there had to be a polar ice cap over the Taklamakan Desert then we also know that the pole was once located there. That establishes that the polar axis of the Earth must move about.
So do we know that there was a polar ice cap over the Taklamakan Desert (or thereabouts?). I would argue that we do. The shape of China, and the clear directionality of the valleys and channels that lead into China from the Tibetan Plateau, establish that a massive volume of water once moved down into China from the plateau (whether gradually or catastrophically), and the only possible way to get such a volume of water above that plateau is to put a polar ice cap there. Nothing else will do it.
So now we know that poles move.
Having established this; we are free to employ the same shifting of the poles to accomplish the second part of the process: Melting the ice cap. We simply have the pole shift away from Tibet, somewhere closer to where it is today perhaps, and watch the ice cap melt.
But though a pole shift is the only way to produce an ice cap of the volume needed in the location needed, a pole shift is not the only way to melt that ice cap when needed. The Hyperborean Hypothesis provides an alternative method with fewer moving parts: We just gradually heat up the Earth.
According to the Hyperborean Hypothesis, ice caps are unusual. The Earth hates them and, as soon as she gets one or two, she immediately starts working to eliminate them. Plants are her weapon. Plants just keep growing and multiplying ad infinitum (maybe even eventually calming and colonizing oceans), all the while pumping more water into the atmosphere: Thickening the atmosphere until all the Earth is warm and balmy.
This makes the eventual elimination of ice caps certain, without having to move the poles. If the north pole was once over Tibet, the ice cap there disappeared then as the Earth warmed. And, as the Earth warmed, the water from that ice drained away into China, either gradually or, if initially retained in an inland sea, all at once.
So that's two mysteries solved: The origin of the water and the reason why the water drained away.
But then; why did the Earth not remain warm forever? And why did the pole shift away from Tibet?
Mick Harper knows.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| LOCATING HYPERBOREA PART II: Glacial Ice Continued.... It is true that the only way to put a polar ice cap over the Taklamakan Desert (or thereabouts) is to shift the pole itself over the Taklamakan Desert. Therefore; if we know there had to be a polar ice cap over the Taklamakan Desert then we also know that the pole was once located there. That establishes that the polar axis of the Earth must move about. |
That would establish....
| So do we know that there was a polar ice cap over the Taklamakan Desert (or thereabouts?). I would argue that we do. The shape of China, and the clear directionality of the valleys and channels that lead into China from the Tibetan Plateau, establish that a massive volume of water once moved down into China from the plateau (whether gradually or catastrophically), and the only possible way to get such a volume of water above that plateau is to put a polar ice cap there. Nothing else will do it. |
Something else would. If it is a submarine alluvial fan that subsequently became dry land when the ocean underwent a lowering of its sea level, it would then be eroded by rivers from the Himalayan massif (not the Tibetan Plateau which is to the south) flowing into the ocean to form the 'valleys and channels of the clear directionality' of China.
| So now we know that poles move. |
Ex your hypothesi.
| Having established this; we are free to employ the same shifting of the poles to accomplish the second part of the process: Melting the ice cap. We simply have the pole shift away from Tibet, somewhere closer to where it is today perhaps, and watch the ice cap melt. |
That would follow, yes.
| But though a pole shift is the only way to produce an ice cap of the volume needed in the location needed, a pole shift is not the only way to melt that ice cap when needed. The Hyperborean Hypothesis provides an alternative method with fewer moving parts: We just gradually heat up the Earth. |
Simpler but more difficult.
| According to the Hyperborean Hypothesis, ice caps are unusual. The Earth hates them and, as soon as she gets one or two, she immediately starts working to eliminate them. |
Do you have a reason for this sudden outburst of emotionality?
| Plants are her weapon. Plants just keep growing and multiplying ad infinitum (maybe even eventually calming and colonizing oceans), all the while pumping more water into the atmosphere: Thickening the atmosphere until all the Earth is warm and balmy. |
OK
| This makes the eventual elimination of ice caps certain, without having to move the poles. If the north pole was once over Tibet, the ice cap there disappeared then as the Earth warmed. And, as the Earth warmed, the water from that ice drained away into China, either gradually or, if initially retained in an inland sea, all at once. |
You did say fewer moving parts.
| So that's two mysteries solved: The origin of the water and the reason why the water drained away. But then; why did the Earth not remain warm forever? And why did the pole shift away from Tibet? Mick Harper knows. |
Not this Mick Harper.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
