October 4, 2023

8 thoughts on “Earth Changes and Pole Shifts – The Tale Of Three Magnets

  1. Strata deposits indicate a radical upheaval of the Earth’s surface, hence a period of tens of hours or days rather than centuries or millennia.

    Niazi’s suggestion that the Earth could stop its rotation and then resume it again is vastly at odds with natural laws – compared to the inverting of its spin axis (a spinning top can do this, and so can spinning objects in zero g – without losing angular momentum).

    So, magnetism is the force that determines Earth’s orientation and gravity the force that determines its orbit.

    What Niazi misses is that Earth’s magnetic field may be changing not due to internal changes, but external ones – especially when tied in to The Sun’s 24,000 year orbit.

    1. I absolutely agree that the internal/terrestrial changes we observe in Earth’s magnetic field are probably side effects of the changing magnetic field of our cosmic environment – and that far more conservation of angular momentum is allowed for if the planet continues rotating in a new position, rather than stopping and restarting. But many prominent names still call for a crustal displacement over the core, with the bulk of the planet maintaining rotation in the same direction, with a temporary uncoupling of crust from core, before the crust reattaches in a new orientation and reassumes the rotation of the much more massive core.

      1. I also find crustal displacement highly plausible along with evidence underlying it, however, the big issue is its causation.

        Two schools of thought:

        1) Something (micronova? that happens every 12,000 years for some reason) reduces crustal friction to near zero such that slippage occurs suddenly with minimal force (centripetal? – but strangely, not even close to 90°).

        2) There is an extreme force (sudden 180° pole flip due to external magnetic field that inverts every 12,000 years – and zero friction in space) such that slippage occurs suddenly (overcoming moderate crustal friction).

        1. I think the following explanation is central – though there are certainly additional factors.
          There is always torque from mass imbalances like off-center ice caps pushing the Earth’s crust away from its present orientation so the greatest masses move towards the equator. This is not strong enough to move anything yet.
          Magnetic liquids (mercury, iron-rich magma) in a magnetic field experience ion alignment in the field, forming a semi-crystalline structure within the liquid, vastly increasing its viscosity (lots of friction)
          If the magnetic field falls below a critical level this ion alignment is overcome by random fluid motion and viscosity falls tremendously.
          This will allow the torque from mass imbalances to shift the crust over this now more fluid layer of liquid magma.
          After the magnetic field strengthens, the new alignment will be magnetically locked in place for thousands of years of stability.

      2. Yup, that’s within the first school of thought. A potential explanation for a sudden reduction in friction/viscosity, that otherwise prevents crustal slippage – that then permits the crust to suddenly slip 10-20° due to centripetal force.

      3. 30° may well have happened, but it is remarkable that it isn’t far closer to 90° if the theory that crustal shift is due to centripetal force applying to mass accumulations at the poles.

        MarioBuildreps estimates of successive poles along with other indications of previous poles do not indicate 90° shifts either – though they do indicate fixed pivot points (equatorial).

        A 180° flip remains the only thing plausible as the origin of a force sufficient to cause crustal shift.

        1. “If Mario Buildreps is correct” and pole shifts always move small amounts in the same direction through Greenland along 47 degrees West Longitude then a permanent pivot point would seem to exist in the eastern Pacific and on the southern coast of Somalia… The Ethiopian highlands would be a very safe and stable place to survive such catastrophes, and it could explain why Egypt may have such long term records – even why man was able to evolve in central Africa for so long.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *