Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Effendi
Hello, I've recently wondered a bit why is the pole reversal so popular among doomsayers and conspiration theorists. I mean a magnetic field reversal which happens overnight because of:
- Planet X and its comets tail close encounter
- A tremendous sun flare
- A cloud of gas or dust travelling through the galaxy and hitting us every11,500 years
- An asteroid
- Planetary alignment
- Something else
- Just so
|
The magnetic field of Earth comes from the spinning core. We are talking about a 7000km thick ball of iron, 3000 km below the surface. Everything you have mentioned are surface effects, they would not reach the core and if they did they would have order of magnitude too little energy to do anything to it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Effendi
What is more, the doomsayers usually claim that the pole shift will cause the Earth to stop spinning and then start again but in opposite direction
|
We are talking about a 7000km thick ball somehow causing a 12,000 km thick ball to change direction? Just as there isn't enough energy in the above mechanisms to do that to the core, there isn't enough energy in the core to do this to the planet. Besides, if Earth's rotation flipped 12,000 years ago then we would know, since it would have massive impacts worlwide that do not exist.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Effendi
(and of course that happened 11,500 years ago resulting in a 90% or 99% extinction).
|
There was no mass extinction 11,500 years ago. There has been a continuous mass extinction event starting around 13,000 years and contuining to the present day. The extinction rates have been much higher than normal but fairly constant over that time period, but spiked within the last few hundred years. However it is no where near even the 50% extinction during the K-T extinction event that wiped out the dinosaurs, and that is the smallest of the "big 5" major mass extinctions up to this point. This extinction event simply hasn't been happening long enough (other mass extinctions occured over tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, maybe even a million years). There is no mass extinction event in history that wiped out 99% of life. The most massive one is the P-T exctinction event 250 million years ago that wiped out 90% of all animal species.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Effendi
I don't know what is their view on evolution and fossil records, because from my understanding only bacterias would servive such a thing and the continents would liquidate.
|
Modern humans existed 11,500 years ago, so obviously that didn't happen
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Effendi
The slowly fading Earth's magnetic field, global warming, each eartquake and hurricane is always a proof for their claims.
|
No, it isn't. They are claiming a rapid change in Earth's magnetic field, not a slow one. Slow changes in the magnetic field are well-established. But one happening extremely rapidly is not. Earthquakes are and hurricanes are well-established, but Earth's rotation stopping and switching directions is not. There is a massive difference in time frame and scale that means those things you just listed have no bearing whatsoever on the claims.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Effendi
Anyway, was it the almighty Edgar Cayce ("the most brilliant mind of our times") who invented it? I heard that it was to happen between 1958 and 1998 according to him.
|
Pretty large time frame in human terms, but obviously incorrect. So why do you still believe it if it obviously didn't happen?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Effendi
The date of this event is of course 2012, because it somehow didn't manage to happen before.
|
And when that doesn't happen, they will push the date back further. That is how it always works, the predicted date comes and goes so they just come up with a new one. People still believe, no matter how many times the predictions fail.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Effendi
Sure there are conspiracy theories to support that claim. If you somehow missed it, NASA is gathering paper books in a bunker in Rocky Mountains  I could give you link if you're intersted. |
Paper books? That is frankly stupid. If they converted them to microfilm that could fit the entire library of congress in a handful standard filing cabinets. If you put them on silica optical discs you could probably fit them in a single binder. Books are also flammable and due to the use of materials tend to break down relatively quickly. Paper is the worst possible way to stockpile books. I couldn't imagine a worse way, except perhaps if you wrote them on steaks and stored them in a dog kennel.