Try this theory on for size

[lovelife11]

Imagine the world as a compass you see on a boat, you know the one that is a little ball and it is floating in water. Ok so picture the planet earth as that compass, so it's floating there and something huge comes along like a commet ramming into the earths atmosphere or an earthquake but something be enough to really rattle earth to its core. Maybe something strong enough to make the planet start to sway, ok so picture the compass when the boat gets rocky and how the ball of the compass is roling around and swaying back and forth. Now picture the planet earth doing that after it was hit by this massive thing or even an act of nature. So the planet is sitting there swaying back and forth until everthing settles down and it finds it's center or for the compass example till it finds it's north. For the earth since it is on a much larger scale the sway time to go back and forth till it centers itself could take months or even years. If this theory hold any water it would explain many this. I would love to hear from you about this.

[VnecksRule]

Can you put that into a more specific term? So the Earth is wobbling on its axis due to a cataclysmic event, yes? And then it somehow goes back to its normal balance? Is this what your trying to say?

[Ophiolite]

Interesting thoughts. You have proposed two rather different things. In the first case an external influence disturbs the Earth. This would change its angular momentum, which might have long term consequences if the change were sufficiently large. The second is an internal influence, which cannot change the planet's angular momentum. The earthquakes that produced the Japaneses and Indonesian tsunamis were massive quakes, yet all they managed to do was shift the axis of rotation by a centimetre or so.

 

So these are big events in terms of their effect on the Earth's surface and its inhabitants, but inconsequential in terms of the Earth as a whole.

 

If this theory hold any water it would explain many this..

Did you mean to type things, not this? Is so, what things did you mean? If not, then I don't understand what you mean.

 

and something huge comes along like a commet ramming into the earths atmosphere

Comets are very small compared with the Earth. We were hit by large objects in the distant past, but not since. Again. I'm not sure where you are trying to go with the idea. Perhaps you can explain further.

[Silica]

While I dont mean to be pedantic - well not too much anyway

 

I think you need to understand the actual philosophy behind what constitutes a theory before using that word. My friend Julian Bulman in his lectures to other geophysicists gives out this note on how theories develop and perhaps this will help explain how you should phrase your thoughts:

 

A theory develops in the following manner:

 

1. Conjecture (that is questioning the accepted understanding), 2. Develop a base hypothesis (this is to explain your conjecture), 3. Study the hypothesis and define any "truths" within the study,4. Publish results and allow others to test your study results, 5. If the ideas stand up to providing testable and provable evidence then this becomes or adds to a theory at which point the study continues to uncover more "truths" and"facts" associated with the study area.

 

Contrary to some uses of the word theory, it is not a belief system it is backed up solely by testable scientific fact,evidence and therefore proof as otherwise, if the results cannot be replicated,then it can be dismissed as it cannot support its own conjecture and hypothesis. Plate tectonics is a fascinating ride through conjecture, hypothesis and theory from its very early roots in the 19^th century to today and the level of understanding that we now have of the titanic forces that go on beneath our feet that only manifest themselves in seismic or volcanic activity.

 

This is why we can all safely dismiss the scams, frauds and hoaxes such as Creationist theory, Intelligent Design theory, Conspiracy theories as they cannot be called a theory under logic or philosophy as they do not have any corroborating empirical evidence or fact associated with them. It is this evidential support mechanism, commonly called the Scientific Method, which allows truth and facts to be determined, without proof and evidence you cannot have any truths or facts.

 

Hope this helps you to define your philosophical thought processes and I would like to see you develop your conjecture a little further.

[Ophiolite]

A nice summary of the scientific method, silica. Unfortunately it seems that lovelife11 was a drive-by poster. His (her) venture into science and philosophy seems to have ended, at least for the moment.