Younger Dryas Hypothesis - The whole picture

[billvon]

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.

Glad you finally figured that out. Now we can move on.

 

[apollobeatz]

You don't prove scientific theories, you test them. Evolution via natural selection has been tested by 1000s of C and has been verified.
This nothing to do with plate tectonics.

Yes, and that's not the main subject here.
The same you could say that there is scientific evidence brought and tested by 1000s of bright people, official and alternative one's, about the existence of ancient civilisations, that date way more back then told us by the mainstream officials! You see that there is a conflict that shouldn't be there, No? In the end we talk about science, and science will win anyway, isn't that so?

 

[apollobeatz]

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.

There is a better explanation for all of this. A better model that will explain way more things there... the same was with the geocentric model in our history of science, and the heliocentric, which followed later. Both models worked, till we had to replace one with an other to explain the remaining things that didn't fit

 

[DaveC426913]

civilisations, that date way more back then told us by the mainstream officials! You see that there is a conflict that shouldn't be there, No?

We don't go on lore and wives tales; we go on evidence.

There is a better explanation for all of this. A better model that will explain way more things there...

So you keep promising. Yet all we have is sizzle. No bacon. Here, in post 124.

I'm callin' it. There's nothin' here but smoke and empty promises.

 

[apollobeatz]

This one argument isn't even in my video, as I found this article just yesterday, while taking a break from the discussion here.
But in my humble opinion, it's the last crucial missing fact, for the earth's crust shift, dated 12 thousand years ago, to say that it's proved now!

The West Antarctic Ice Sheet Seems to Be Good at Collapsing

As it shrinks, sea level rises—and a new study finds it shrank dramatically even when Earth was not as warm as today.

www.nationalgeographic.com

Scientists have discovered that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet underwent a major retreat between 10,000 and 12,000 years ago!

Why is that so?

That is because the old north pole was in Greenland, and thus the old south pole and it's polar circle were the same shifted by 15 degrees, and didn't cover the whole Antarctic continent as it's the case today!

 

[DaveC426913]

That is because the old north pole was in Greenland, and thus the old south pole and it's polar circle were the same shifted by 15 degrees

You're now suggesting that the entire Earth, from pole to pole - all 10^24kg of it, just sort of spontaneously lurched 15 degrees over, and then lurched 15 degrees back again - so recently that mastodon still roamed the steppes - and nobody noticed. Do we have that right?

This is getting more silly with each passing post.

 

[apollobeatz]

You're now suggesting that the entire Earth, from pole to pole - all 10^24kg of it, just sort of spontaneously lurched 15 degrees over, and then lurched 15 degrees back again - so recently that mastodon still roamed the steppes - and nobody noticed. Do we have that right?

This is getting more silly with each passing post.

Hold on for a sec, where did I claim that the earth's crust moved 15 degrees in one direction and then back again at some point?

By the crust shift you won't get the "lurch by 15 degrees" either, that is related to the axis of spin! Told that many times, and we are still here!
And YOU want me to get into some more complex things, like the better model of the continental drift and Earth in whole?
I'll get to it, we are in process...

 

[apollobeatz]

I ll add one more quote out of this artice I posted, as there are people who do not watch videos or read the articles posted here, but give priceless advises...

Quote: On the far side of West Antarctica from where Scherer and Tulaczyk worked, Kingslake had found independent evidence that the ice sheet had once retreated far inland. Reviewing all the evidence, Torsten Albrecht of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany estimated that the retreat happened 10 to 12 thousand years ago.

The West Antarctic Ice Sheet Seems to Be Good at Collapsing

As it shrinks, sea level rises—and a new study finds it shrank dramatically even when Earth was not as warm as today.

www.nationalgeographic.com

 

[billvon]

Quote: On the far side of West Antarctica from where Scherer and Tulaczyk worked, Kingslake had found independent evidence that the ice sheet had once retreated far inland. Reviewing all the evidence, Torsten Albrecht of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany estimated that the retreat happened 10 to 12 thousand years ago.

Don't tell me you have just discovered the Holocene! If so good for you! Welcome back to reality.

 

[DaveC426913]

Hold on for a sec, where did I claim that the earth's crust moved 15 degrees in one direction and then back again at some point?

By the crust shift you won't get the "lurch by 15 degrees" either, that is related to the axis of spin! Told that many times, and we are still here!
And YOU want me to get into some more complex things, like the better model of the continental drift and Earth in whole?

1. You suggest that both arctic pole and antarctic pole shift by 15 degrees - as if they are one solid object.

2. If it did not lurch one way and then back the other way, then it is permanently off by 15 degrees from what it was pre-12,500BCE.

I'll get to it, we are in process...

Alas, here we are in post 130+ and you still haven't "gotten to it".

 

[Pinball1970]

Yes, and that's not the main subject here.
The same you could say that there is scientific evidence brought and tested by 1000s of bright people, official and alternative one's, about the existence of ancient civilisations, that date way more back then told us by the mainstream officials! You see that there is a conflict that shouldn't be there, No? In the end we talk about science, and science will win anyway, isn't that so?

You mentioned Evolution not me.

Just a word of advice. Why don't you dial it down a tad? You don't come across as stupid at all even though some of your claims are outlandish.

If you have real things to say based on solid published work and there are some good guys on planetary science/ earth science (not me)

 

[billvon]

There is a better explanation for all of this. A better model that will explain way more things there... the same was with the geocentric model in our history of science, and the heliocentric, which followed later. Both models worked, till we had to replace one with an other to explain the remaining things that didn't fit

The geocentric model didn't "work" at all. It was merely an explanation people accepted, because it agreed with "what their own naked eyes" showed them. But it didn't explain the course of the Sun, the Moon or the planets. It did not explain parallax changes. It did not explain gravity. It didn't work.

 

[billvon]

Scientists have discovered that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet underwent a major retreat between 10,000 and 12,000 years ago!

Why is that so?

Because that's when the Holocene began, and the last ice age ended.

This is really simple stuff and I am surprised you can't comprehend it.

 

[apollobeatz]

You mentioned Evolution not me.

Just a word of advice. Why don't you dial it down a tad? You don't come across as stupid at all even though some of your claims are outlandish.

If you have real things to say based on solid published work and there are some good guys on planetary science/ earth science (not me)

I already explained what I meant by that, there is no smooth and slow evolution process, not at all. We got a lot of evidence of that you simply can't ignore anymore. As for the rest, I think I do keep it as simple as possible, as the people do not come up with all I say, at least the posting here ones. So I try to keep the discussion simple, because that is a discussion forum in the end, not a science resource where you can just post all your work in one piece in form of article, and forget about it.. I could kind of do so, with posting just the video, but no, I stayed for the discussion with people that are here. Ok, I think that's it with the subject of Darwin and evolution here. I would discuss it deeper in an other topic or subject.

 

[apollobeatz]

The geocentric model didn't "work" at all. It was merely an explanation people accepted, because it agreed with "what their own naked eyes" showed them. But it didn't explain the course of the Sun, the Moon or the planets. It did not explain parallax changes. It did not explain gravity. It didn't work.

It did explain the path of the sun and moon very well! We could predict them and calculate equinox days in a geocentric model.
For math it isn't so much of importance which model you use. You can adopt the math and formulas to almost any model, by ignoring this and that! That's what we exactly do today in our old and to a some degree wrong continental drift model!

 

[apollobeatz]

Because that's when the Holocene began, and the last ice age ended.

This is really simple stuff and I am surprised you can't comprehend it.

Well, here we go again. How can we move on the more complex things, when we are still here...

Yes, I did already explain the rapid temperature rise in the Holocence and the end of the ice age actually!

So you see, the fact that only the western part of the Antarctica wasn't covered with ice, totally fits to the earth's crust shift by 15 degrees, from Greenland to the modern pole position! The picture with the exact old south pole position and it's polar circle, made by me in 3D software, I brought aswell in earlier post.

 

[apollobeatz]

1. You suggest that both arctic pole and antarctic pole shift by 15 degrees - as if they are one solid object.

2. If it did not lurch one way and then back the other way, then it is permanently off by 15 degrees from what it was pre-12,500BCE.


Alas, here we are in post 130+ and you still haven't "gotten to it".

Yes, sure, with the whole rapid earth's cruft shift as a one solid unit. I thought we have been through it already, no?

The more or less exact date I am talking about is 12 thousand years ago! Your 12,500 BCE would mean 14,500 years ago, but okey, who cares that much on a science forum, right?.

 

[billvon]

So you see, the fact that only the western part of the Antarctica wasn't covered with ice, totally fits to the earth's crust shift by 15 degrees

It also fits with the beginning of the Holocene, which is already understood. We have dozens of lines of data showing a sudden warming at the end of the last Ice Age.

Have you ever heard of Occam's Razor? It's a maxim that states that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

 

[DaveC426913]

We got a lot of evidence of that you simply can't ignore anymore.

Youve got nothing so far.

Post 138 and counting.

Yes, sure, with the whole rapid earth's cruft shift as a one solid unit. I thought we have been through it already, no?

Just clarifying that is, indeed, the zaniness you are espousing.

To be clear: you suppose that,
~12,500 years ago,
- i.e. while modern neolithic humans were practising agriculture
- the crust of the Earth,
- not the whole Earth, just the crust - nevertheless the entire crust
- as a single unit,
- from Greenland all the way down to Antarctica,
- just sort of slid around by 15 degrees.

Like ... someone picking up a glass snow globe I guess.

 

[apollobeatz]

It also fits with the beginning of the Holocene, which is already understood. We have dozens of lines of data showing a sudden warming at the end of the last Ice Age.

Have you ever heard of Occam's Razor? It's a maxim that states that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

May be I heard about that earlier, not so sure, but that would actually mean that my simple explanation of all the evidence, I posted already, with just one crust shift by 15 degrees, back 12 thousand years ago, would be correct then!

Ok, if you got a simpler and better explanation for the End of the Ice age, Permafrost regions in Siberia, Alaska and Canada, extinction of mammoths, and arctic seals on the Lake Baikal, for example, then let us see it. Just for that, but there is way more...

For example, the modern dating by official academics of the Lake Baikal suggests that it may be around 8 thousand years old!
Which already is way more precise, by thousands of times, as the former dating of it to 25-35 millions has used the Alfred Wegener's work for it, and the concept of India colliding with Eurasia.
I claim it's actually the same 12 thousand years old! And Lake Baikal didn't exist before the gigantic comet strike into Eurasia.
But so far, we just stayed on the discussion of the earth's crust shift, which I see as a proved one!