Theory of the earth's inclination

[mooeypoo]

Everyone knows the earth is moving around the sun in an oval course, and that it's rotating around itself during that movement. And we all know that it's rotating not in a 0 degree inclination, but something that resembles 23 degrees (if I got it right, correct me if I'm wrong).

 

Not long ago I've heard a theory that states that this inclination couldn't have been simply created as the earth was created from the sun, but was done about 10,000 years ago when a large meteor crashed on earth, relatively close to one of the poles, presumably shifting earth and causing it to rotate with an inclination of 23 degrees.

 

That theory also states that due to this shift the two polar continents - antarctica and arctica - also shifted, freezing actual land that used to be warmer. From what I understood that theory is also supported, at least partially, by some fossils and frozen remains that are found in Antarctica.

 

Those who support this theory also claim that it is possible that a large community of humans lived on earth at that time - a community that was relatively advanced to teh stage of having trade and water-travelling, and that this shift caused by this meteor caused major changes in the landscapes - specially the ones close to sea shore - wiping out all the civilization that lived near the shores (as we all know, the more advanced people) and leaving only those who lived inside mountains or in deep land (like deserts and such) - causing humanity to step back about 1500 years in "technology" and knowledge.

 

Also, there is a story I've heard about the remains of a woman found in south america - the most ancient mummy ever found on earth - that was found wearing leather boots (not like the ones we have today, obviously, but still) and cloths, and around her neck they found stones that don't exist in any other region of the world, only in Africa, which suggested the existance of trade and merchance between Africa and South america -- which is quite shocking. What's more shocking, is the approximation of the mummy's "age" - about 9,000 years ago.

 

Has any of you heard of any of those theories? If yes, I'd appreciate more information, if not, what do you think of it? Do you think it may be true? It sounds like many things support it...

 

I'd love to hear your inputs,

 

~moo

[swansont]

I doubt a meteor would have enough angular momentum to tilt us by 23 degrees, especially if it happened near one of the poles.

 

The arctic is not a continent - it's just a bunch of ice.

 

There are reasons to think that the earth's axis wasn't 0 degrees in recent times - there are seasonal deposits in lake beds (varves), and differences in oxygen isotopes (O¹⁶ vs O¹⁸) in ice (arctic or antarctic) that is seasonal, and there are hard to account for if you don't have seasons!

 

Do have links for any of this?

[mooeypoo]

Yes but antarctica is a continent, and traces of fossils were found there - fossils that are of animals living in warmer climates.

 

The question is also can anything of this sort happen if the meteor hit earth at all? (even not near the poles)?

 

I'm trying to find links, this is just something I've heard from a few friends and read in a book somewhere.

 

~moo

[Dave]

Yes but antarctica is a continent, and traces of fossils were found there - fossils that are of animals living in warmer climates.

 

Doesn't plate tectonics explain this?

[Sayonara]

Errr... isn't the tilt of the axis 23 degrees on average?

 

Iirc the swing of the planet in its axis is what causes the seasons.

[PerpetualYnquisitive]

Earth Crust Displacement. This is Professor Charles H. Hapgood's theory that says the surface of the planet shifts all at once, due to weight of the polar ice caps and the centrifugal force of the Earth's rotation.

 

It provides a logical explanation for the fact that many animals found frozen near the Arctic Circle had freshly eaten 'warm climate' vegetation in their bellies.

It also provides a global catalyst for all the "Flood Myths" seen in different cultures.

[swansont]

Errr... isn't the tilt of the axis 23 degrees on average?

 

Iirc the swing of the planet in its axis is what causes the seasons.

 

There is precession and nutation, but that's fairly small. The seasons arise because the tilt is present, so at one point one pole is pointed toward the sun and one hemisphere gets a lot more sunlight. But because angular momentum is conserved, six months later the axis is pointed in the same direction (wrt a fixed point in space) so the other pole is point toward the sun and the other hemisphere gets more sunlight.

[Guest amburlin]

Hmmm, I remember hearing somewhere that the earth's tilt was becomming minimally greater over time due to the fact that earth's revolution is slowing down. I have nothing to back this it's just something I remember. Also, is it possible that the change in climate could be caused by the shift in the magnetic poles? I know that messes with a lot of stuff, but I have to admit that I don't know enough about it to really say much.

[geistkiesel]

Everyone knows the earth is moving around the sun in an oval course' date=' and that it's rotating around itself during that movement. And we all know that it's rotating not in a 0 degree inclination, but something that resembles 23 degrees (if I got it right, correct me if I'm wrong).

 

Not long ago I've heard a theory that states that this inclination couldn't have been simply created as the earth was created from the sun, but was done about 10,000 years ago when a large meteor crashed on earth, relatively close to one of the poles, presumably shifting earth and causing it to rotate with an inclination of 23 degrees.

 

That theory also states that due to this shift the two polar continents - antarctica and arctica - also shifted, freezing actual land that used to be warmer. From what I understood that theory is also supported, at least partially, by some fossils and frozen remains that are found in Antarctica.

 

Those who support this theory also claim that it is possible that a large community of humans lived on earth at that time - a community that was relatively advanced to teh stage of having trade and water-travelling, and that this shift caused by this meteor caused major changes in the landscapes - specially the ones close to sea shore - wiping out all the civilization that lived near the shores (as we all know, the more advanced people) and leaving only those who lived inside mountains or in deep land (like deserts and such) - causing humanity to step back about 1500 years in "technology" and knowledge.

 

Also, there is a story I've heard about the remains of a woman found in south america - the most ancient mummy ever found on earth - that was found wearing leather boots (not like the ones we have today, obviously, but still) and cloths, and around her neck they found stones that don't exist in any other region of the world, only in Africa, which suggested the existance of trade and merchance between Africa and South america -- which is quite shocking. What's more shocking, is the approximation of the mummy's "age" - about 9,000 years ago.

 

 

Has any of you heard of any of those theories? If yes, I'd appreciate more information, if not, what do you think of it? Do you think it may be true? It sounds like many things support it...

 

I'd love to hear your inputs,

 

~moo[/quote']

Also, whre did the Sumerians community come from. Overnight, approximately 5000 years BC the Sumerians sprang up with instant civilizaion: Schools, agriculure, law, trade, metallurgy, medicine, mathemaics, religion, the whole nine yards.

Very perplexing to the mainliners, very perplexing.

 

You have to get "Cataclysm" by two Oxford scholars that go into great detail with abundant documentation. There were mamouths, saber tooth tigers etc quick frozen such that the freezing must have occured wihin minutes. Fom say 80 degrees fahrenheut to -40, like that. Caves crammed witht the broken bones of a variety of animals that one wouldn't normally see together in a cave, including humans. The bones were crushed as if crammed into the fissure by a tremendous force of "water", but huge force. MAybe on the oder of 500 meters high or higher moving at 800 km/hr. Huge 1000 ton boulders in places a glacier couldn't have produced.

 

The myths abound around the planet of a great event, water significant in the stories, whee have we heard that one?

 

Some speculate that a huge chunk of Antartica broke of creating a huge tidal wave, but the one that explains the tilt is a huge meteor or Planet collision. Temperate zone had been the rule from a few hundred kiolometers from each pole through out the planet. Average temeprature did not vary much. Not a lot of rain, but very high humidity. Plant life was watered by precipitation during the night. The authors make a strong case for the absence of ANY ice age, ever, at least on the scale that is commonly discussed. Get the book you wont put is down. Easy reading from the simple to the moe complex as you progress. It isn't a pretend book at all, but heresy it is, to the "prevailing view".

[geistkiesel]

Hmmm, I remember hearing somewhere that the earth's tilt was becomming minimally greater over time due to the fact that earth's revolution is slowing down. I have nothing to back this it's just something I remember. Also, is it possible that the change in climate could be caused by the shift in the magnetic poles? I know that messes with a lot of stuff, but I have to admit that I don't know enough about it to really say much.

 

Join the prevailing view. For instance, the temperature changes that are required to produce the huge volume of water necessary for any "ice age" theory are clear. The energy required to evaporate enough water to account for the 'ice" over an extended period of times is substantial. During this same time span the temerature must be sufficientlt low to allow for the accumullation of all that evaporated water. Maybe it was hot during the day, over wate, and freezing during the night over land, ewith the requied temperature and vapor pressure.

 

Another laugher: Ice agers contemplate the rising and falling of "mouintains" in he arctic reagion to account for the height necessary for glaciers to move. Ice, as slick as it is, doesn't move by it own accord, unless i've missed something crucial.

 

You say you really don't know much? Get a book, "Cataclysm" You'll know a lot about it by the time you are through. Read Sitchin's "The Twelth Planet", read anything about the unexplainable sudden rise of the Sumerian Civilization.

[Guest amburlin]

Thanks for the advice geistkiesel, actually the book sounds interesting but Im having a hard time finding it, do you have an author name?

[admiral_ju00]

 

Not long ago I've heard a theory that states that this inclination couldn't have been simply created as the earth was created from the sun' date=' but was done about 10,000 years ago when a large meteor crashed on earth, relatively close to one of the poles, presumably shifting earth and causing it to rotate with an inclination of 23 degrees.

 

That theory also states that due to this shift the two polar continents - Antarctica and arctica - also shifted, freezing actual land that used to be warmer. From what I understood that theory is also supported, at least partially, by some fossils and frozen remains that are found in Antarctica.

 

[/quote']

 

Meteor even the size of Manhattan will NOT do that.

Especially Not 10,000 years ago. the whole idea that a meteor of that size that has killed of the dinosaurs is also not entirely true as it would leave massive amounts of evidence and we have found absolutely none of. Not only do we miss evidence in terms of geological feature(crater), but the radiation of it as well. Can't remember the name of this radiation that we lack to concretely say that it was indeed a meteor that killed off 95% of life - or the Permian mass extinction. Also, the reason behind why Antarctica is where it is and why it has fossils is because it used to be a part of Pangea. There are some very neat models paleontologists have developed that shows the formation of Pangea and it's breakup to what we now know or see today.

 

Also, add to that what swansont said.

 

Those who support this theory also claim that it is possible that a large community of humans lived on earth at that time - a community that was relatively advanced to teh stage of having trade and water-travelling, and that this shift caused by this meteor caused major changes in the landscapes - specially the ones close to sea shore - wiping out all the civilization that lived near the shores (as we all know, the more advanced people) and leaving only those who lived inside mountains or in deep land (like deserts and such) - causing humanity to step back about 1500 years in "technology" and knowledge.

 

Well, humans are quite a bit older than 10,000 years, but there were NO such societies. That would mean that this society must have been the 1st to develop agriculture and the earliest evidence of that goes back some 7,000+ years ago.

 

Also, there is a story I've heard about the remains of a woman found in south america - the most ancient mummy ever found on earth - that was found wearing leather boots (not like the ones we have today, obviously, but still) and cloths, and around her neck they found stones that don't exist in any other region of the world, only in Africa, which suggested the existance of trade and merchance between Africa and South america -- which is quite shocking. What's more shocking, is the approximation of the mummy's "age" - about 9,000 years ago.

 

No I've not heard that, but it does not sound right. At least the date is not right. The most advanced (sea worthy) society I know of goes back to 3-4,000 years ago and that is when the Asians spread out through the Polynesia - Polynesian migration. There are lots of evidence for this, plus an mtDNA research to concur that.

[admiral_ju00]

It isn't a pretend book at all, but heresy it is, to the "prevailing view".

 

It probably is, and I think you're placing your trust a bit too much into this one book, that has even not been accepted by the majority of geologists and or anthropologists.

[Sayonara]

Meteor even the size of Manhattan will NOT do that.

Especially Not 10' date='000 years ago. the whole idea that a meteor of that size that has killed of the dinosaurs is also not entirely true as it would leave massive amounts of evidence and we have found absolutely none of[/quote']

A couple of good candidates have been found recently, iirc there are two that are now beneath water.

[admiral_ju00]

Yes, but that is still debatable.

 

I know that one of them is thought to have hit the Gulf of Mexico, but where is the other one? Isn't that one assumed to be near Australia or something???

[Sayonara]

No, these aren't assumptions. I'm talking about mapped impact sites that could have been responsible for the end of the Dinos, hence the word "candidates".

 

A recent idea is that the K-T impact was the "straw that broke the camel's back", because the Chicxulub impact had already placed significant stress on the ecosphere for 300,000 years.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3520837.stm

 

There has been some more recent damage to the "dinos survived K-T impact" theory as well:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3458651.stm

[admiral_ju00]

err... We're talking about two entirely different geological periods here.

The fault is mine. For some reason, I misread mooeypoo's original post and made the connection to dyno's in my reply. But my post in #12 is still valid when it comes to permian mass extinction, that however, is an entirely different matter.

 

On a side note, I seriously need to start practicing the art of proofreading. :embarrassed:

[YT2095]

I`ve heard somewhere (don`t rem when / wehere) that once the Moon was actualy part of the Earth, I don`t know how true this is at all (it seems unlikely), but wouldn`t an impact large enough to do that also make us so many degrees out in spin?

[swansont]

I`ve heard somewhere (don`t rem when / wehere) that once the Moon was actualy part of the Earth, I don`t know how true this is at all (it seems unlikely), but wouldn`t an impact large enough to do that also make us so many degrees out in spin?

 

Yes, but that was fairly early on - certainly not within man's time on earth, and thought to be well before that. I think the composition of the moon indicates that it was after the chemical differentiation of the core, mantle and crust, since there's not a lot of iron on the moon.

[brave_new_world]

I read somewhere that there is evidence (by examining erosion) that the sphinx was once under a body of water. Since the Sahara is about 5 million years old that would make the sphinx at least a little more then 5 million years old. Therefore there would have to have been civilization on the earth at least 5 million years ago, in times much earlier then the sumerians.

 

since this thread as touched on the subject of ancient civilization, i'm curious to know your opinions on this hypothesis, wether its definitly a load of bullshit or if it's possible.

[admiral_ju00]

That's Ludicrous.

[PerpetualYnquisitive]

I read somewhere that there is evidence (by examining erosion) that the sphinx was once under a body of water. Since the Sahara is about 5 million years old that would make the sphinx at least a little more then 5 million years old. Therefore there would have to have been civilization on the earth at least 5 million years ago' date=' in times much earlier then the sumerians.

 

since this thread as touched on the subject of ancient civilization, i'm curious to know your opinions on this hypothesis, wether its definitly a load of bullshit or if it's possible.[/quote']

 

 

Dr. Robert Schoch, a prominent geologist and professor from Boston University, has estimated that the Sphinx may have been contructed as far back as 10,500 B.C., due to the weathering patterns that he observed and the fact the 3 main pyramids at Giza form part of the Orion constellation on the ground, as shown by Robert Bauval, but the 5 million year theory seems to be a flight of fantasy.

 

More on Schoch: http://www.bu.edu/cgs/faculty/inserts/schoch.html

More on Bauval: http://www.robertbauval.com/

[Sayonara]

he observed and the fact the 3 main pyramids at Giza form part of the Orion constellation on the ground, as shown by Robert Bauval

That's been convincingly debunked.

 

I say "convincingly" because it doesn't match up with Orion.

[ydoaPs]

i was doing research for an english paper my freshman year, and in a book (i don't remember which one), i saw that an ancient gilded model airplane was found. the people who found it made a larger model and it was a good glider. this isn't the first incident of technology in ancient times. the iraqi battery? there is even evidence to support that the people in ancient egypt had light bulbs. there was hieroglyphics describing it and scientists followed the description and made one. it worked

[admiral_ju00]

It would be nice if you had some linkage or at least if you could remember the title of that book.

 

On a side note, I wanted to leave that nonsense theory brought up in #20 as simply 'ludicrous', but for some reason Sayonara's post makes me uneasy, so I'll need to elaborate a tad more on it.

 

The idea that there was an advanced civilization some 5mya is nonsense because there has been absolutely no evidence found of it. Unless one assumes that either Aliens or the Australopithecines did it, which would be comical. Even if you take into the equation the fact that the Sphinx is in a desert (now) and this civilization might have existed while Africa was still a lush forest and that with the exception of Sphinx itself all other archeological data is deep beneath the constantly shifting sands - thereby nearly impossible, a potassium-argon test on the sphinx will certainly doom that theory.