Possible Causes of Pole Shift
This post is inspired by the back and forth comments with one of my main blog followers who goes by the name “Zod” and who recently suggested several potential explanations.
Zod wrote: “There are at least 5 theories as why a pole shift happens every dozen millennia (twice a great year):
1) LaViolette superwave: An energy wave emanating from the galactic core (tens of thousands of light years away) decreases mantle/crust viscosity permitting crustal rebalancing.
2) Solar event: A major solar outburst/solar flare/major plasma impact, with as yet unknown causation for pole shift.
3) Asteroid impact: Earth passes through a mega asteroid belt, where there is an ample supply of large asteroids, such that tangential collision causes crustal shift.
4) Zeta/Nemesis: A large planet/dead star eccentrically orbits The Sun such that it passes just close enough to the Earth to magnetically tip it over.
5) Barycentric Sun/Sirius orbit – Earth consequently oscillates above and below galactic plane, moving between toroidal flux lines of the galactic magnetic field, consequently moving into an oppositely polarised magnetic field, whereupon it will eventually, suddenly flip 180°, with concomitant crustal shift.
Only the last theory provides an explanation for the accelerating migration of measured magnetic north, i.e. as Earth further enters an opposing field, so the direction of the magnetic north that we measure appears to drift from geographic north and Earth’s internal magnetic north.
On the surface we cannot detect an external, celestial magnetic field, and its relative strength and alignment as compared to Earth’s. Many will have assumed that the magnetic field we measure is 100% terrestrial.
The last theory is also the only one that may explain an increase in seismic/volcanic/climatic abnormalities prior to a pole shift, e.g. due to antagonism between opposing celestial and terrestrial magnetic fields.
All five theories indicate an abrupt pole shift, but only the fifth can explain any possibility of a gradual build-up of anything beforehand, not least the accelerating drift of magnetic north.
So, either there is no gradual build up of anything (magnetic north drift is purely coincidental), and one of the first four theories is more likely, or it is the converse.
It would seem that there are already many signs that the Earth is getting close to a POLE SHIFT. My responses included:
1 – Although I still think the LaViolette superwave theory is very likely correct, Dr. LaViolette himself does not feel that this is likely to be the primary factor to trigger a major pole shift, and he emphasized this in personal emails to me in October.
2 – Solar event – while the sun could be the primary cause of changes on Earth, I suspect that the sun itself is affected by the galactic field and by the galactic superwave.
3 – Asteroid impact – could cause one pole shift, but could not repeatedly cause them in a predictable cycle. Much too random on timing.
4 – Nemesis or Planet X or Nibiru – I can’t see how a large astronomical body could come so close to us as to alter our magnetic field, yet not destroy our planet completely or knock us out of orbit around the sun – over and over and over in a predictable cycle. Earth would be destroyed by now if our orbit closely crossed paths with such an object more than a few times.
5 – Binary Companion Star – it is very possible that our sun, like many others, has a dark companion a great distance away.
There could be complex electromagnetic fields as the two stars experience aphelion and perihelion and these could affect the sun, and then the Earth, much the same way as a galactic superwave could have a periodic effect.
#1 and #5 could both explain periodicity, but we can observe galactic superwaves in other spiral galaxies like Andromeda, so I am still leaning towards #1. However, should the Earth clearly show a huge rise is earthquakes, volcanoes, and other Earth changes prior to a pole shift, then a gradually increasing cause like the nearest approach of a companion star might make more sense than a sudden event like the arrival of a cosmic energy wave.
6 – Yes there should be a #6 because many suggest a terrestrial cause of pole shifts – that irregularities and eddy currents in the flow of liquid magma deep within the Earth periodically cause a polarity reversal on the surface, and that this might – by itself – lead to a crustal displacement – a rotational pole shift that moves at least the surface of the planet over the core, if not the entire body of the planet.
7 – Yes there should be a theory #7 because many (including Hapgood, Brown, Einstein, etc. have considered the possibility that the main cause of pole shifts is the imbalanced accumulation of ice on the surface of the crust, not symmetrically centered on the rotational pole. Such mass imbalances are believed to have caused pole shifts on other heavenly bodies like Mars and Europa, but calculations seem to indicate that ice imbalances, while a contributing factor, are insufficient to cause a pole shift on their own.
8 – Earth’s diminishing magnetic field. The imbalanced mass of the ice cap in Antarctica, not perfectly centered on the rotational pole, exerts significant torque on the crust. I assume that nothing has happened recently because the friction between layers
more than overcomes the centripetal tangential force exerted on the crust. However, the Earth’s magnetic field is weakening, and Hannes Alfven’s theory of magnetohydrodynamics explains why viscosity in liquids affected by a magnetic field
(like mercury, or magma) suggests they would at some critical point experience a sudden collapse in viscosity and friction once the magnetic field weakens sufficiently. I assume that a large and not-centered/imbalanced ice cap mass plus a declining terrestrial magnetic field plus the arrival of the gravity wave component of a galactic superwave could trigger a full scale (30 degree or more) crustal displacement/pole shift.
Bottom Line: The causes of a POLE SHIFT might be complicated. But the evidence that they have been happening in a periodic cycle is well documented.
* The cycle in and out of the galactic plane is on a half-cycle of approximately 33 million years and would not explain pole shifts. We just crossed about 3 million years ago.” A lot of hype about “crossing the galactic plane” was promoted for 2012 and is still discussed today but we are nowhere close to the galactic plane (it will be another 30 million years before we cross it again) or to any potential change in polarity that might be caused by crossing it.
5 thoughts on “Possible Causes of Pole Shift”
I’m glad to see that the list has extended to 8 possible causes of a pole shift.
One can then filter these possible causes according to whether they tie in with the periodicity of a dozen millennia, in other words, could they explain, or be explained by, the precession of the equinoxes?
Moreover, one can refine that filter by adopting the position that precession of the equinoxes is caused by Sol’s barycentric orbit with Sothis. This orbit having a period of 24,000 years (with the current rate of precession being slower in the slightly elliptical orbit – crudely extrapolating to 25,800 years), termed a great year.
Given Sothis is officially contended to be 8.6 LY away, when it is actually 4-6,000 AU away (and will be 1-2,000 AU away at periapsis), official contentions as to timing and (33 MYr) periodicity of the Solar System’s oscillation across the galactic plane should be taken with a pinch of salt, especially given that ’33’ is generally used to indicate false or occulted data.
If the pole shift is sudden and can be predicted to occur every 12,000 years, give or take a few decades, then this best ties in with oscillation between magnetic fields. Imagine the Earth as a NS magnet and the ambient field is gradually changed in polarity from SN to NS (linearly, not rotationally). At some point, the slightest instability will cause a sudden 180° flip (maintaining Earth’s rotational and magnetic axes). The force of that flip can then trigger a crustal shift of some degree (with evidence of fixed equatorial pivot points), hence leaving a variety of magnetic alignments in geological strata. This gradual reversal of the ambient magnetic field can also explain apparent (accelerating) deviation of magnetic North, and apparent weakening of Earth’s magnetic field – as well as most other Earth changes.
That Sothis has been hidden is a clue that it explains the pole shift cycle.
None of the other possible pole shift causes better fit the evidence.
If the movement or non-movement of Sirius relative to precession was a more perfect match I would take it more seriously. But Sirius has moved, not losing one degree or day every 72 years (the rate of precession of the equinoxes) but one every 120 years – due to its unusually large proper motion. Long ago, when the West used the Julian calendar, the difference of about one day every 48 years seemed almost exactly cancelled out by the inaccuracies of the calendar (relying on 365.25 days per year, but without any additional corrections) which led to the Gregorian calendar jumping 11 days ahead in September 1752 when Britain and many other nations adopted it.
So in the Julian calendar, the heliacal rising of Sirius, from one location like Memphis, only moves forward about one day every 1460 years. But that is because the Julian calendar was inaccurate, not because Sirius and precession are truly in sync. In the Gregorian calendar, if we backtrack before it was established, Sirius would have risen in June for early Egyptian dynasties, but it now rises in August.
Sirius does NOT move in an exact match with precession.
Unlike other stars, Sirius does not precess (on a daily basis). This is the prime measure, and evidence that Sirius is The Sun’s binary twin.
Our annual calendar has been tinkered with over the years. It is not a good measure.
The month of the rising of Sirius is also not necessarily directly correspondent with the apparent movement of Sirius across the celestial sphere.
Are there historical records as to where Sirius was in the celestial sphere in ancient times, e.g. 4,000BC? For example, ancient star charts that show both Sirius and Orion?
As far as I know, the proper motion of Sirius is so high that it appears to take 120 years to move one degree, rather than the usual 72 years. If any historical records of the stars’ positions even mentions Sirius, it would be Babylonian records that are best, but they won’t even go back to 1000 BC… and they would only mention a star by name, not where it is compared to other stars – unlike the planets, this stays the same. Except for the few stars like Sirius with very high proper motion, but this may not even have been noticed by the Babylonians. At one of your favorite sites: http://www.binaryresearchinstitute.com/srg/The%20Sirius%20Research%20Group%20-%20Original%20Files/Sirius%20&%20Precession%20of%20the%20Solstice.pdf they note that: “Otto Neugebauer, who wrote extensively about Babylonian astronomy, also discussed the so-called Solstice-Equinox-Sirius texts, which formed part of the “Astronomical Diaries”. These texts list equinoxes, solstices, heliacal risings and settings of Sirius from the period of around 600 BCE and around 330 BCE. Apparently, the position of Sirius relative to the solstices and equinoxes did not change over time with precession. Neugebauer therefore, concludes: “This is, incidentally, further evidence for the fact that the Babylonian astronomers were not aware of the existence of precession.” Of course with Sirius’ proper motion, it would only move 2.5 degrees in 300 years, while other stars would move 4.16 degrees, and they should have noticed the 1.66 degree discrepancy if they were looking for it.
Another problem with both the Sirius/binary theory AND the galactic superwave/LaViolette theory if that not every planet in our system has the same 26,000 year cycle: “As on Earth, the effect of precession causes the north and south celestial poles to move in a very large circle, but on Mars the cycle is 175,000 Earth years rather than 26,000 years as on Earth.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomy_on_Mars#cite_note-24 – Alex S. Konopliv; Charles F. Yoder; E. Myles Standish; Dah-Ning Yuan; William L. Sjogren (2006). “A global solution for the Mars static and seasonal gravity, Mars orientation, Phobos and Deimos masses, and Mars ephemeris”. Icarus. 182 (1): 23–50. We may not yet be able to measure precession on Venus, as the surface temperature of 850 degrees F is hot enough to cause problems in glass lenses and is beyond the melting point of lead, zinc, plastics, and other materials our satellites are made from – therefore landing a craft on Venus and having it function for a long enough time to measure precession isn’t possible. Mercury is so close to the Sun that its cycles are overwhelmed by general relativity from the intense gravity, and the more distant planets are gas giants with no solid surface to land on. But Mars alone having a vastly different precession cycle seems to rule out Sirius or the galactic center as a cause for Earth’s 26,000 year precession cycle; and if pole shifts do in fact have a roughly 12,900 year cycle that is half a precession cycle then it apparently has a cause which is terrestrial or perhaps related to our orbit with the Sun and or Moon….