| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
 |
|
| LOCATING HYPERBOREA PART III: Shifting the Poles The shape of China, and the directionality of the channels and valleys feeding into China from the Himalayas, indicates that a polar ice cap once sat on top of those mountains. Only a polar ice cap---specifically, a melting polar ice cap---could possibly produce the water flow required to shape the Chinese landscape in the manner we see it today. Nothing else would afford enough water. |
OK
| According to Earth Scientists, the Earth experiences somewhat regular cycles of warm and cold. Warm periods last longer than cold periods. The Hyperborian Hypothesis maintains that the warm periods are normative for the Earth. In fact, it maintains that the Earth maxes out at a temperature so hot that trees will grow at both poles (evergreens, not palm trees). |
I'm not sure they go that far but, yes, that's the gist.
| Of course this means that trees, given sufficient time, would eventually have grown atop the Himalayas, when the pole rose out of that spot. Once the Earth warmed sufficiently, the entire Himalayan polar ice cap would have melted and, eventually, plant life of every suitable variety would have made their home at the top of the world. |
OK
| But the Himalayas are not now at the top of the world---or the bottom---and there aren't any plants there. Why? A very simple explanation is available to us (pace Mick Harper): The weight of water. |
OK
| The polar ice caps that exist today are massive, especially the one at the south pole. So heavy is the ice in Antarctica that it probably offsets the Earth's center of mass southward by several hundred feet. Canada's far north is currently above water in large part because of this offset. |
Yes, but surely it is trivial compared to the mass of the earth? We are both relying on the earth being a gyroscope and can therefore be manoeuvred by relatively small forces but my model says it is the force of water surging round the earth that shifts the poles. Where they end up is dictated by weight of water (and ice)--hence a circular Pacific centred on the equator, a circular ice continent at one pole etc. I don't think yours includes a forceful element. Without that, a gyroscope is remarkably stable.
| The Hyperborean Hypothesis holds that the temperature of the Earth is actually set by trees. The more of them there are, the warmer it gets, and trees and other plants will eventually maximize to such a degree as to cover every surface they can (which might eventually be every surface there is). So it follows that, when the Earth suddenly gets cold, it means that something very bad has happened to a very many trees. |
Very true but post facto.
| But it also means that the melting of every polar ice cap is inevitable, given sufficient time. And when that ice melts, not only does Earth's center of gravity shift, the distribution of mass relative the equator, and its centrifugal forces, also shifts. In short, the Earth cannot maintain the orientation of a glacial period when in an inter-glacial period. The pole must move. |
This is good--if you are confident your cause will produce your effect.
| Now; if the ice melts away gradually, which it appears to do, then the pole too will wander away gradually. Nothing too much to worry about. That slow melting over aeons, and the river run-off from the glacial mass, is what produced the fan shape of present-day China. However; it's not just the melting of the ice we need to worry about; it's the draining of the water. |
OK
| Oftentimes, when the ice melts, the water stays put. Trapped in deep gullies or penned in by mountains, vast continental fresh-water seas can be left behind where an ice cap once was. Unfortunately, water always seeks a lower level and the forces of erosion must inevitably find a point of release. |
Ah, now we are venturing more on my territory.
| I can tell you right now that such a point of release can be found today in the area of the Mekong River, where it spills out from the Kunlun Plateau. That entire plateau, as well as the desert region from Taklamakan to Mongolia, was once a gigantic inland fresh-water sea. The whole thing drained away in the blink of an eye and the long-run mudslide that poured down with that water flowed all the way south to the Java Sea. |
Nice one.
| This is a massive redistribution of mass. It was so large and so fast that the pole shot away like a bullet, sending the Earth rocking back and forth until, eventually, it found again its footing, with the pole located perhaps somewhere close to where it is today. Or perhaps not. |
This would indeed shift the pole since we know the Christmas Day Indian Ocean tsunami shifted the pole. But not very far.
| One possibility is that the pole that was then over the Himalayas moved to the South China Sea. There's a lot of geography in that region suggestive of an ice cap. And, when the pole shifted, an ice cap is exactly what would have formed (and it would have formed rapidly). |
This is a bit flimsy. I have actual bona fide palaeo-glacial evidence for my three poles.
| Because all the trees were dead. All over the world. |
I think you may have to amend this to 'nearly all'.
| The massive flooding produced by the release of the "Taklamakan Reservoir," and the rocking of the Earth resulting from the resulting sudden and disastrous shift in the poles, ensured that massive portions of the world were suddenly denuded or permanently submerged. And that may not have been the worst of it. |
You'll beat me hands down with the ultra-catastrophist crowd.
| What was worse; the new land that rose from the oceans was completely lifeless. Nothing grew on it. It produced no heat. The consequence: An Ice Age. |
Not bad.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
Might I commend a study of the Brahmaputra River for your purposes? Especially the bit where the Chinese are going to build a dam that will provide enough electricity to power Germany.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
|
One way to view these dams: Man-made reconstructions of the natural barriers that once existed. It is indeed possible for human beings to flood the entire Taklamakan Desert. Now THAT would afford enough power to energize a planet. After all: It once moved one.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | This is a bit flimsy. I have actual bona fide palaeo-glacial evidence for my three poles. |
I'm not denying your three poles. But they were much more recent. And likely came in quick succession.
The polar ice cap that sat once over the Himalayas did so eaons ago. Regardless of what Geologists say, it had to be there once-upon-a-time, because it's the only way to get the water needed to shape China.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
A Word About SLOP
What I am suggesting is that we may have been too fixated upon trapped liquid water as our engine for shaping the planet. Your hypothesis regarding Greenland establishes that a glacial mass alone can produce geologic uplift on its rim: The weight of the ice causes the surrounding ground to rise up as the glacier presses down. The effect: A range of uplifted ground arrayed in a vast arch marking the outer rim of the glacial mass that once sat behind it.
When the ice melts, that same uplifted ground becomes the rim of a vast, inland, fresh-water sea. Imagine an inland ocean nearly the size of present day Antarctica.
Throughout its geologic history, Earth has had many poles (and two at a time). Former glacial masses have produced all of the mountain ranges we see today. These mountains were one raised rims. Erosion has worn them down to peaks.
You can locate a former pole by looking for the arcs of mountains framing an internal plateau. The Great African Escarpment is an excellent example, demonstrating that southern Africa was once home to a pole. Of course, because the Earth's center of mass shifts by several hundred feet whenever the pole shifts, the plateaus and ridges may not always be today obvious: The ridges typically sink on one side and rise on the other, meaning that the plateau itself may not today sit at an elevation much higher than sea level (and some are now fully submerged).
Not every arch of raised mountains constitutes the former rim of a glacier, however. Submarine alluvial fans can produce arcing coral reefs that, when the pole shifts, rise out of the water to become mountains. Those arcs, however, do still typically form in relation to the pole, as it is the rivers flowing down from the melting ice and emptying into the ocean that determine the the distance and shape of the coral reef.
This is a big subject but you know it well so I'm mentioning it without much detail.
The big idea here (with respect to SLOP) is that we need not worry about using ice to form walls around oceans in order to trap water. The ice itself is the water.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | So heavy is the ice in Antarctica that it probably offsets the Earth's center of mass southward by several hundred feet. |
Yes, but surely it is trivial compared to the mass of the earth? |
Several hundred feet is trivial compared to the size of the Earth. Yet, several hundred feet is of unfathomable consequence to the surface of the Earth.
I'm absolutely right about this. If anything, I've underestimated the effect.
Shift the Earth's center of mass sufficiently and you can submerge Everest. This is why the relationship between mountains and valleys is generally consistent for those below water as those above: Every mountain below the ocean once sat on dry land.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Ishmael wrote: | | One way to view these dams: Man-made reconstructions of the natural barriers that once existed. It is indeed possible for human beings to flood the entire Taklamakan Desert. Now THAT would afford enough power to energize a planet. After all: It once moved one. |
It wasn't the dams so much as the fact that the Tsangpo is like all the other Chinese rivers while it's in Tibet, i.e. heading due west for the Pacific Ocean, but then does a U-bend, drops further and faster than any river in the world (hence the dam), becomes the Brahmaputra and finishes up in the Indian Ocean. It's gotta mean something for both of us.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
This is a bit flimsy. I have actual bona fide palaeo-glacial evidence for my three poles.
I'm not denying your three poles. But they were much more recent. And likely came in quick succession. |
Agreed.
| The polar ice cap that sat once over the Himalayas did so eaons ago. Regardless of what Geologists say, it had to be there once-upon-a-time, because it's the only way to get the water needed to shape China. |
Yes, but China was clearly formed in recent geologic times i.e. concomitant with my recent poles. Certainly not aeons ago.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| A Word About SLOP What I am suggesting is that we may have been too fixated upon trapped liquid water as our engine for shaping the planet. |
OK. 'We' are listening.
| Your hypothesis regarding Greenland establishes that a glacial mass alone can produce geologic uplift on its rim: The weight of the ice causes the surrounding ground to rise up as the glacier presses down. The effect: A range of uplifted ground arrayed in a vast arch marking the outer rim of the glacial mass that once sat behind it. |
That's true but it is on a very small--dare I say, orthodox--scale. I use it only as evidence, not process.
| When the ice melts, that same uplifted ground becomes the rim of a vast, inland, fresh-water sea. Imagine an inland ocean nearly the size of present day Antarctica. |
That ain't very big. Caspian rather than Oceanic.
| Throughout its geologic history, Earth has had many poles (and two at a time). Former glacial masses have produced all of the mountain ranges we see today. These mountains were one raised rims. Erosion has worn them down to peaks. |
That would mean the ice/water was even higher. I'm not happy with such tall tales but I'll go along.
| You can locate a former pole by looking for the arcs of mountains framing an internal plateau. |
Obviously I like this since I use arcs in profusion. It is also true that polar glaciation is one of the few forces that produces an arc at all. (The only one?)
| The Great African Escarpment is an excellent example |
Is that an arc? Show me.
| demonstrating that southern Africa was once home to a pole. Of course, because the Earth's center of mass shifts by several hundred feet whenever the pole shifts, the plateaus and ridges may not always be today obvious: |
Sounds like you're not going to show me.
| The ridges typically sink on one side and rise on the other, meaning that the plateau itself may not today sit at an elevation much higher than sea level (and some are now fully submerged). |
Well, a Central African pole must have been 'aeons' ago. All geographical features of this sort are worn away in geographical not geological time.
| Not every arch of raised mountains constitutes the former rim of a glacier, however. |
You mean you can pick and choose?
| Submarine alluvial fans can produce arcing coral reefs that, when the pole shifts, rise out of the water to become mountains. Those arcs, however, do still typically form in relation to the pole, as it is the rivers flowing down from the melting ice and emptying into the ocean that determine the the distance and shape of the coral reef. |
True, but only recently.
| This is a big subject but you know it well so I'm mentioning it without much detail. |
Don 't let that affect you. The world's your oyster. (But do them one at a time, because of my limited attention span.)
| The big idea here (with respect to SLOP) is that we need not worry about using ice to form walls around oceans in order to trap water. The ice itself is the water. |
You will have to convince me of that re SLOP but good luck if you don't need them for (B)ISH-OP.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
So heavy is the ice in Antarctica that it probably offsets the Earth's center of mass southward by several hundred feet.
Yes, but surely it is trivial compared to the mass of the earth?
Several hundred feet is trivial compared to the size of the Earth. Yet, several hundred feet is of unfathomable consequence to the surface of the Earth. |
The centre of the earth's mass is on the surface? I like a nice bit of revisionism for my tea but this is going to be hard to swallow
| I'm absolutely right about this. If anything, I've underestimated the effect. |
All right, I heard you the first time.
| Shift the Earth's center of mass sufficiently and you can submerge Everest. This is why the relationship between mountains and valleys is generally consistent for those below water as those above: Every mountain below the ocean once sat on dry land. |
I can't really complain since I need something similar with my gyroscope model.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
LOCATING HYPERBOREA PART III: Shifting the Poles - The Weight of Water
Mountains can be big. Really big. Nothing so impressive on the surface of the earth!
Yet, even the tallest mountain amounts not even to a pimple on Earth's surface, compared to the massive scale of the Earth itself. A celestial giant, holding the Earth like a basketball in his hands, could not detect even Mount Everest. The entire surface of the globe would, to him, feel perfectly smooth---if a little wet in most parts.
And even that wetness would be but a thin film. Thinner even than what would be held together by surface-tension on a basketball at our scale. From the tallest peaks to the deepest oceans is of insignificant depth compared to the size of the planet itself.
At our human scale, we imagine that the oceans are limited by altitude: There is insufficient water to swallow the highest ground, which we understand to be where the solid surface of the Earth is a bit nobly: Where solid bits stick out from what would otherwise be a perfect sphere [or ovid, for the fact-checkers]. But on a planetary scale, the height of these nobly bits is of no significance at all.
The most import determinant of where the Earth is dry and where the Earth is wet is the position of Earth's center of mass.
Earth's center of mass is always located toward the center of the planet. The operative word here, however, is "toward." The center of mass is never located at perfect center, in no small part because of the distribution of mass on the surface. Of course, we can have no idea what is happening below the surface and I shudder to think of the impact subtle and unpredictable fluctuations in the arrangement of mass at the core might have upon the surface. What we can observe, however, is how the position of Earth's center of mass is impacted by mass on Earth's surface.
A popular puzzle among armchair geologists is the matter of Earth's apparent queer favoritism of the north for dry land, and it's penchant for directing triangular fingers of dry land toward (but never reaching) the south pole. This is no longer a puzzle once we retrain our focus from the surface to the center: The center of mass.
Earth's center of mass is presently shifted southward from true center by a few thousand feet. This is an insignificant distance on a planetary scale. Nevertheless; this makes the southern hemisphere slightly "downhill" and the northern hemisphere slightly "uphill." The oceans then must run downhill, away from the north, and toward the south, to fill in the gravitational depression. This "depression" is not a distortion in the solid sphere but a function of the southern hemisphere's ever-so-slightly nearer proximity to the planetary center-of-mass.
The effect upon the unsubmerged portions of the Earth is that that land left dry in the north appears broad and squarish while the land left dry in the south appears long, thin, and spindly; for there, only the tallest peaks and surrounding elevations remain above water and all tend to sink on approach to the pole.
This effect is nowhere more apparent than in southern South America. The mountains that terminate at Tierra del Fuego are clearly one and the same with those that reemerge from the ocean at the Antarctic Penninsula. That entire range was once above water but the connecting portion is now submerged: Submerged due to a displacement in the Earth's center of mass.
The cause of this displacement: Ice.
Ice is the only surface mass that can grow and increase---both outward and upward. When you are unlucky enough to get a continent-sized chunk of it affixed to the Earth at one end (which, actually is typical), it draws the Earth's center of mass toward it, with the shift occurring as rapidly as the glacial mass forms. A continent-sized glacier is a lot of mass and easily enough to shift the center-of-mass a few thousand feet (which, again, is nothing on a planetary scale).
The total mass of the ice that forms depends on the current global temperature, which we know is a function of the quantity of vegetation.
Immediately after the catastrophic denuding of plants that follows a shift in the poles, the Earth is extremely cold. But conditions, unfortunately, are destined to worsen. Given that ice forms at a singular pole, oceans will flood that hemisphere, drowning everything that once grew there. New land, emerging in the opposite hemisphere, is lifeless and cannot compensate for the loss. This, of course, causes more ice to form at the pole, causing more flooding and the emergence of more denuded land. The process continues until the globe reaches minimum temperature, as determined by the surviving plants.
Most of the plants that survive are those that find themselves in the the hemisphere opposite the glacier (even most of those now at the re-positioned equator drown, as ocean depth there rises under the influence of centrifugal forces).
The plants of the opposing hemisphere will now seed the new Earth, slowly spreading over the globe. As they expand, the global temperature rises.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pete Jones
Site Admin
In: Virginia
|
|
|
|
| Ishmael wrote: | | Of course, we can have no idea what is happening below the surface and I shudder to think of the impact subtle and unpredictable fluctuations in the arrangement of mass at the core might have upon the surface. |
What about the predictable fluctuations? Have you thought about how the tidal friction inside the earth might figure into your overall picture?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| LOCATING HYPERBOREA PART III: Shifting the Poles - The Weight of Water Mountains can be big. Really big. Nothing so impressive on the surface of the earth! |
He's waxing lyrical again.
| Yet, even the tallest mountain amounts not even to a pimple on Earth's surface, compared to the massive scale of the Earth itself. A celestial giant, holding the Earth like a basketball in his hands, could not detect even Mount Everest. The entire surface of the globe would, to him, feel perfectly smooth---if a little wet in most parts. |
The best analogy I know is an orange.
| And even that wetness would be but a thin film. Thinner even than what would be held together by surface-tension on a basketball at our scale. From the tallest peaks to the deepest oceans is of insignificant depth compared to the size of the planet itself. |
People make the same error when asked how hot the earth is (say, compared to the sun). They say twenty degrees (or whatever) when it is actually eight thousand degrees (or whatever).
| At our human scale, we imagine that the oceans are limited by altitude: There is insufficient water to swallow the highest ground, which we understand to be where the solid surface of the Earth is a bit nobly: Where solid bits stick out from what would otherwise be a perfect sphere [or ovid, for the fact-checkers]. |
I myself have a tendency to the 'not enough water' fallacy. There's so much of it, it's a wonder there is any 'land'. And that's not factoring in ice. In fact now you mention it, they are in suspicious balance. Cheers!
| But on a planetary scale, the height of these nobly bits is of no significance at all. The most import determinant of where the Earth is dry and where the Earth is wet is the position of Earth's center of mass. |
A bold claim, I hope you are going to stand it up.
| Earth's center of mass is always located toward the center of the planet. The operative word here, however, is "toward." The center of mass is never located at perfect center, in no small part because of the distribution of mass on the surface. |
Are you saying a basketball's centre of mass is only 'towards the middle'?
| Of course, we can have no idea what is happening below the surface and I shudder to think of the impact subtle and unpredictable fluctuations in the arrangement of mass at the core might have upon the surface. |
Not much, it would seem. (That's worth knowing!)
| What we can observe, however, is how the position of Earth's center of mass is impacted by mass on Earth's surface. |
We can?
| A popular puzzle among armchair geologists is the matter of Earth's apparent queer favoritism of the north for dry land, and it's penchant for directing triangular fingers of dry land toward (but never reaching) the south pole. This is no longer a puzzle once we retrain our focus from the surface to the center: The center of mass. |
There's a horse and cart problem here but I can't quite pin in it down. I get round all this using my gyroscope model because I can then use the spin to adjust the axis.
| Earth's center of mass is presently shifted southward from true center by a few thousand feet. This is an insignificant distance on a planetary scale. Nevertheless; this makes the southern hemisphere slightly "downhill" and the northern hemisphere slightly "uphill." The oceans then must run downhill, away from the north, and toward the south, to fill in the gravitational depression. This "depression" is not a distortion in the solid sphere but a function of the southern hemisphere's ever-so-slightly nearer proximity to the planetary center-of-mass. |
It's ingenious, I give you that.
| The effect upon the unsubmerged portions of the Earth is that that land left dry in the north appears broad and squarish while the land left dry in the south appears long, thin, and spindly; for there, only the tallest peaks and surrounding elevations remain above water and all tend to sink on approach to the pole. |
I might even use it!
| This effect is nowhere more apparent than in southern South America. The mountains that terminate at Tierra del Fuego are clearly one and the same with those that reemerge from the ocean at the Antarctic Penninsula. That entire range was once above water but the connecting portion is now submerged: Submerged due to a displacement in the Earth's center of mass. |
I have it as accidental so you are in advance of me there.
| The cause of this displacement: Ice. |
Heavy, man.
| Ice is the only surface mass that can grow and increase---both outward and upward. When you are unlucky enough to get a continent-sized chunk of it affixed to the Earth at one end (which, actually is typical), it draws the Earth's center of mass toward it, with the shift occurring as rapidly as the glacial mass forms. A continent-sized glacier is a lot of mass and easily enough to shift the center-of-mass a few thousand feet (which, again, is nothing on a planetary scale). |
This is very nifty. I don't necessarily accept it is heavy enough to affect the basketball but it's nifty.
| The total mass of the ice that forms depends on the current global temperature, which we know is a function of the quantity of vegetation. |
Which Christopher Q Ash hypothesises is a function etc etc
| Immediately after the catastrophic denuding of plants that follows a shift in the poles, the Earth is extremely cold. But conditions, unfortunately, are destined to worsen. Given that ice forms at a singular pole, oceans will flood that hemisphere, drowning everything that once grew there. New land, emerging in the opposite hemisphere, is lifeless and cannot compensate for the loss. This, of course, causes more ice to form at the pole, causing more flooding and the emergence of more denuded land. The process continues until the globe reaches minimum temperature, as determined by the surviving plants. |
OK
| Most of the plants that survive are those that find themselves in the the hemisphere opposite the glacier (even most of those now at the re-positioned equator drown, as ocean depth there rises under the influence of centrifugal forces). The plants of the opposing hemisphere will now seed the new Earth, slowly spreading over the globe. As they expand, the global temperature rises. |
OK. (I'm a bit punch drunk.)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
I remember having a vicious argument with someone about there not being a north and south in space (or something). The fact of going one way round the Sun does however create a potential difference between the two poles.
PS The Moon creates gravitational forces that must overwhelm anything mere ice, water and land can do on earth. Or multiply them of course.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
|
I've been neglecting this essay for some weeks now. Apologies. I've begun work on a new project: Editing a feature film on my own time. This is just a "fan edit" but I believe it could get my talents noticed and possibly help me generate a higher income. That project will remain my top priority over the next few months. I shall return.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
