apollobeatz
Registered Member
A wildy speculative idea, that sounds somewhat better then "conspiracy nuttiess", I guess, we make progress!
Younger Dryas Hypothesis - The whole picture
- Thread starter apollobeatz
- Start date
A wildy speculative idea, that sounds somewhat better then "conspiracy nuttiess", I guess, we make progress!
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
If you check the record, pretty sure you'll find the "you're nuts" came well after asking you to support your beliefs. Pretty sure it also came after your reference to Atlantis, and your rant about how all Darwinists are oppressing you with their "rules!" and want you to be painted as idiots, but that it is the Darwinists who will ultimately be ... blah blah blah.
How about you just start laying them down, instead of wasting all this time defending your ego? There's nothing that will shut your critics (myself included) up faster than just making a coherent case and backing it up with verifable facts.
Lay them down in small chunks. Not the whole mess at once.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
He didn't bring up Atlantis, or ancient native oral legends, or the oppressive "rules" of the Darwinists. There's yer nuttiness...
apollobeatz
Registered Member
Plato's Atlantis and Indian legends got something to do with conspiracy? We got to update the artice on wikipedia about conspiracy theories, fast!
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
I didn't say conspiracy; that was you (in post 101). I said nuttiness.
Going to ask that you read more carefully before responding.
Of course you can. Plates migrate all over the place. The plate under the North Pole migrates down to the equator, now you've got the former pole over the equator.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
My "you're nuts" comment (there may have been others) was in post 50, after establishing in discussion that this poster claims the whole Earth's crust moved, suddenly, as a block, over the underlying mantle and core, by about a thousand kilometres, 12,000 years ago.
apollobeatz
Registered Member
OK, it's just a reflection of your conspiracy accusations towards me, even after my words, that old theory will be replaced with new more precise one, and there is no conspiracy about it. Even the Darwin theory isn't proved yet, so what are we talking about?
I meant by that, that the Darwin lovers will want to paint as much as possible a clean picture for us, that there was a smooth and simple evolution process. But that is so ridiculous with all the facts we have today! They can't make it look as smooth as they want, with the same official science facts... But the Younger Dryas Hypothesis and mine will make it even more harder. And yea, we had 12 thousand years ago not only the cave people, told us by Darwinists, but civilisations who built the mythical Atlantis (it was actually built even way before that)... but okay, cross that, with Atlantis, but the real Mayan pyramids, we see and know about, specially in Teotihuacan, can be dated the same old!!! Arguments are in the video again with some nice 3D animations. But in short, they were built in respect to the old north pole in Greenland like all the Egypt's pyramids are built in respect to the modern north pole.
apollobeatz
Registered Member
Yea, and? Well ok, I will take it as a compliment, because that is so much "out of space" kind of. I like btw the UK's band The Prodigy! They got the "Out Of Space" track. Had been a fan for a long time!
Last edited:
apollobeatz
Registered Member
What about the axis of spin? Aren't the poles connected to it?
If you have a random plate movement all over the planet, then you can't say there was the old pole and 1 millions years later there.... It makes no sense! You will just stick to the axis of the spin. But if there was a whole crust shift, then you can say so
The pole is an abstraction defined by the motion of the planet. It has no physical landmark. But if you define a section of land as "the pole" then that section of land can move with time, even if the pole doesn't move with it.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
I am becoming rather more skeptical of our friend's knowledge of planetary physics here....
I would have thought the order of operations would be:
1. First Learn how planets rotate and tectonic plates move.
2. Then make an hour long video about his opinions on it
As I stated at the outset: there is nothing wrong with having scant knowlege of a subject. You are coming around to asking questions and pondering the answers than when you were simply making assertions. That's a good thing. You'll find most members very accommodating when you're open to learning.
apollobeatz
Registered Member
Oh, friend, how nice. I am talking about the poles we define on our maps, not continents like Antarctica as poles.
That is what Wegener was talking about there in his work, poles on the maps, with longitudes and latitudes.
If that makes sense for you, when Antarctica moves east, and arctic ocean moves south, to update the whole coordinate system on our maps, then okay, you are special. But even if there would be something wrong, like may be translation of Wegener's work into russian, or he didn't use the exact correct words... that will not matter as a whole, we will get just minus one fun fact. Thanks for your priceless advices!
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Billion has already explained to you that the poles are not tied to geographical locations on the Earth, but are defined by the axis of the Earth's rotation.
We don't "update the coordinate systems on our maps" as you, say because the continents haven't moved more than scores of feet in the entire human history of mapmaking.
But yes, here is an ancient Antarctica, quite some distance from the pole :
Last edited:
apollobeatz
Registered Member
If it's trolling, you are good at it! Good morning!
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
This is news to you about poles and map coordinates, isn't it? You really don't have any idea what you're talking about, do you? 
OK looks like you are missing some pretty basic stuff here.
If a planet is spinning, its spin defines its axis. The poles are the two places on the planet where there is no axial rotation. It DOESN'T MATTER what land mass is there. If it's ocean (i.e. the North Pole right now) then there's no land there. If there's land (i.e. Antarctica) then you can define a place on land that the South Pole is at. But as Antarctica shifts, so will that location. So there will be a new location, and that location will no longer be at the North Pole.
We currently use the poles as the basis of our terrestrial coordinate system. So as the land shifts, yes, there will be new coordinates for locations on land.
Fortunately this shift is slow enough that our usual system of land designation (latitude and longitude) doesn't have to change very often. But if you wait long enough, any given point on the Earth's surface will indeed move - and then have new lat/long coordinates.
apollobeatz
Registered Member
I can wait till you will realise, that I told exactly the same on previous pages!
But in the end result, you won't get any new coordinate system by the random mish mash drift of plates and continents, as it's fixed to the axis of spin as a whole. But what you will get, for sure, is new coordinates for the specific plates and continents!
But in the end result, you won't get any new coordinate system by the random mish mash drift of plates and continents, as it's fixed to the axis of spin as a whole. But what you will get, for sure, is new coordinates for the specific plates and continents!
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
You don't prove scientific theories, you test them. Evolution via natural selection has been tested by 1000s of scientific teams and has been verified.
This nothing to do with plate tectonics.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Then I guess we can just ignore the last page of your comments where you seem to be confused about it.
Plates and continents do not generally have "coordinates". We use maps to indicate their locations, like this:
Shortly following the Creaceous period, 50 million years ago, you can see the Indian subcontinent colliding with Asia, creating the Himalayan mountains.
There is a LOT of inter-corroborating evidence - from multiple independent science disciplines - that supports this, all of which would have to be addressed before any competing model could be taken seriously.
Things like:
- paleo-biology - species comparisons across continents:
- plate tectonics - known, modern structures, which even now are on-the-move:
- paleo-magnetism, which tells us about the orientation and locations of various parts of the Earth's surface in relation to the magnetic field of the era.
to name just a few.
Last edited: