Big Blue,
Here is a very good NASA article about the shifts in the magnetic poles, including the evidence you mentioned at the mid-Atlantic rift.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

I see, Sp1ke.

To me, what you're calling "proof" is further evidence of what the ancients were claiming.
The pole shift notion is simply the "scientific" rendition of the modern mind.
Not so different, IMO.

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

Can you explain how you equate stories of large disasters to magnetic pole shifts? Because a magnetic pole shift doesn't have to cause any disaster at all. Or did I misunderstand your point?

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

Which ancient cultures were dependent on magnetic compasses, then? Unless you spend a lot of time messing with lodestones you aren't going to notice the field lines kinking.

If you were above the arctic or antarctic circles you might notice that the aurora have vanished. Of course you'd have to trust the word of your great, great, great, great, great (how many "greats" do you need to make up ten thousand years?) grandfather said about seeing Northern Lights.

The only way ancient cultures would have documented the changes in the Earth's magnetic field is if; a) there were effects we haven't discovered yet, of magnitudes greater than the effects we expect, and; b) what happened, happened swiftly enough so it could be understood and documented as an event. If farming got a little harder and temperatures got a little higher over a period of ten thousand years it would be very difficult for anyone to detect the change, as against all the faster and greater changes occurring across a human culture. Farmland gets depleted in much less time, erosion is swifter, and the effects of slash-and-burn agriculture are blindingly fast against that sort of time scale.

__________________
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

And oh by the way. As I understand we don't have a "notion" of a pole shift coming in the near future. We have an _expectation_. To buttress that expectation we have observation of the "baked-in" magnetic record of undersea lavas, and we have the observation of current drift and increasing "kinking" of the current field. The last is an observation, one that could be made independently by anyone with a compass and time (the last correction was, what, fifty years ago?)

__________________
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Thanks Ashdel, A.DIM, SP1KE and Swift: I should have googled the answer to my question now I've checked! The link kindly given by Swift is brilliant.

What intrigues me about Glatzmaiers modelling of the pole shift is that they've been able to get a 'one off' magnetic pole reversal to occur but they've yet to get any kind of cyclical effect. For a cyclical effect (eg a shift on average every 300,000 years) the system must have a long range cyclical phenomenon which they have yet to model? This raises the question as to whether it is external (ie solar system based) event that triggers the shift or an internal (ie within the earth) event. Who knows?

I think its important not to link a magnetic pole shift with any kind of disaster theory or flood legend: I've never read of the magnetic pole shift being associated with either? It seems too that present day scientists don't identify a disaster element with it either? Interesting to be around when it does flip over...or perhaps not!

What I think is very interesing here though is this concept of the 'modern rendition of a myth' as alluded to by A.DIM. If a myth or archeological text describes something that was not known by the scientists of the day, and then our latter day scientists confirm the hypothesis...then surely that myth is no longer a myth?

So my next question is:

"What is the earliest historical statement or discussion that cyclical magnetic pole reversals occur on Earth?"

This kind of leads to the question about the source for Cayce's 'knowledge' about pole shifts? Cayce was clearly wrong in terms of the dates he stated for a pole shift but I wonder what emboldened him to talk about them in such a 'matter of fact' way in the first place?

It doesn't matter whether he was or wasn't a genuine seer: its a fact he was talking about 'pole shifts' in the 1940s? So I wonder whether the cyclical magnetic pole reversal data was available then (and not just a wandering around of the pole which historically is well known.) Either way, a very well read chap to raise it as an issue though.

So it would be useful to find an early reference within the field of paleomagnetism (the study of the Earth's past magnetism according to the NASA site!) which talks about cyclical magnetic reversals.

Ditto the earliest allusion to the phenomenon from the arcane would be of interest too.

Thanks again to everyone for chipping in - I'm glad the documentary I saw wasn't something I made up!

__________________
Think About It

My point was that the ancients linked celestial phenomena to earth changes, catastrophism, and the Great Year.
Not that the ancients measured electromagnetism.
The OP's list is astronomical in nature and touched on the 12K year cycle that is half a Great Year.
I wanted to clarify the association, though now I'm unsure I did.

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

Magnetic reversals don't follow any kind of regular cycle this is a graph showing the known states of the geomagnetic field as far back as we have data, you can see how much variation between the times between flips. My interpretation of it is a system with two metastable states that is being randomly disturbed (the source of the disturbance would be beyond my knowledge) causing it to flip between them.

__________________
"Any Sufficiently Analyzed Magic is Indistinguishable from SCIENCE!" -Agatha Heterodyne

"Any technology, no matter how primitive, is magic to those who don't understand it." -Florence Ambrose

Brunhes, for whom one of the reversals is named, concluded in 1906 that the earth's field must have reversed. Mercanton and Matuyama made their observations in the 20's. As you say, the idea of the shift of the poles goes back hundreds of years before that and was undeniable, but the field reversal was not accepted without doubt, even in the forties when a great number of reversal remnants were discovered.

See Physics of the Earth, 3ed., Stacey

So the myths have no relevance to shifts in the Earth's magnetic field. Check.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

If scientists find evidence for some catastrophic event that was recorded by ancients in mythology, then that evidence does mean the catastrophic event recording takes on some validity. However, the explanation provided by the ancient witnesses is not necessarily validated. There may have been an earthquake, but that doesn't confirm that Zeus was angry.

Agreed, especially for the case of the Greek god Zeus. However a most interesting choice of 'god' here would be any of the south american, sumerian or egyptian deities. All of these gods were reported more 'matter of factly' than say Zeus.

I think the only way we can ever get to the bottom of what was going in our distant past (eg archeoastronomy) is when we can match up a mythical statment or legend from the past that was imparted by the 'gods' and which was beyond the science of that time, and yet we only now know to be true. It looks like for example, that Edgar Cayce could easily have picked up on pole shift reversal from prevalent theories of the early part of the last century and then used it in his readings (whether 'consciously' or not.)

So far I've not been able to come up with an archeoastronomical legend that fully backs things up to the level needed (and of course most on here will say I never will!). I think the closest things I've come across are the Doggon tribe and the star Sirius B. Similarly the legend of the destruction of Tiamat is interesting and one I might raise on a seperate thread to see how the BAUT crew tackle it!

A quick thanks again for everyone responding and especially for the courtesy of the links. {I'm still looking at the magnetic reversal 'bar code' pattern for earth and trying to assess whether it is cyclical or not (aside from the eons where nothing happens of course) - if I had a bar code scanner I'd like to see what price I'd get for the data!}

Thanks.

__________________
Think About It

Big Blue,
One piece of friendly advice. Discussions of mythology are allowed by the rules of this board. But be careful extending that into religious discussions, that starts getting on a slippery slope. You might want to read through the FAQs and the rules.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

Um...

The two small moons of Mars were described by Jonathan Swift on the basis of a then-current conceit that since Earth had one moon and Jupiter four, Mars must then have two.

That two such moons were eventually discovered does not in any way validate his method. We all know, for instance, that Jupiter has many more moons than the four big "Galillean" ones.


This was the point of the "Zeus" comment. An ancient culture can accurately record the location and date of a nova, regardless of whether they call it a new star or a dragon in the sky.

The leap of illogic is in deciding that since an ancient culture was able to observe a nova, they also must understand stellar fusion.

__________________
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Noted and my post has been edited accordingly: apologies. I'm only interested in finding scientific information that might be ahead of its time regardless of source or contextual belief system. I'll stick to myths. Thanks for the heads up.

__________________
Think About It

I think you are possibly coming at this from a slightly different angle than me. I'm not really interested in whether anyone actually 'understands' what underscores a correct hypothesis or observation (gravity being a pretty big good case in point!). I'm only interested in trying to deduce whether the associated observation, knowledge or information is outside the scientific capability of that time.

This in turn tends to limit the corresponding science to that which is on either an microscopic scale (and thereby presumably not relevant to this board), or astronomical one (which I hope is), I'm particularly interested in archeo-astronomical observations that have been made concerning astronomical/cosmological events that are beyond the naked eye and/or a simple telescope, and thus could not have been witnessed terrestrially in the ancient past. As stated, the Tiamat and Dogon myths are probably the most interesting ones I've come across.

Regards, Big Blue

__________________
Think About It

Swift's mention of the two moons of Mars was outside the scientific capability of the time.

How so? Guessing at the number of moons on Mars based on the observed/assumed number of moons around Earth and Jupiter is to me everyday playing with numbers whatever the period of history. Its a bit like the Nuclear Shell Model approach...look at the data, guess a pattern, see if someone proves you wrong. To me this kind of observational guessing is standard scientific practice for that period, and of course its still in use today.

__________________
Think About It

The knowing is outside. Just like the Dogon myths.

If you don't accept Swift's, why do you accept the Dogon's? There are just a rational "explanations" for that.

Note I don't 'accept' anything: I need the data first and in all likelihood the BAUT team to agree that the data is indeed anomolous. The more stuff that can be knocked back scientifically, the better.

I don't accept Swift's guesswork because the observation of the number of moons around Earth and Jupiter was (as far as I know) available data at the time. If for example he could have quoted the material composition of the (then unknown) planet Pluto and then we wait until now for NASA to back it up...then that's the kind of anomaly I'm seeking. Similarly, any archeoastronomical observations on planet structure and their moons etc that is beyond guesswork and beyond observations of the time is the kind of thing I'm interested in. I just don't rate Swift's observation as being particularly anomalous or outside of his time, to me its just a projection of the known available data.

As for The Dogon, on the contrary, the backstory for that is specifically that the tribe in question could not have had any 'available data' to go on with regards to the orbits of Sirius etc. I'm not convinced its been 'that' well debunked either: you can always debunk anything you've decided you don't want to believe in just as well as a believe in anything arcane that you want to believe in.

For me the 'evidence' has to have been cast in stone a long while ago (literally if possible) such that it can't be tampered with today, and its meaning only interpretable with today's scientific data. For me, The Dogon myth is unfortunately too recent to stand aside from a possible contamination of the source material, and I can't see how that can be fixed. The Sumerian Cosmological stuff is more interesting because the source data (ie clay tablets) cannot now be corrupted; misinterpreted - yes, but corrupted, probably not.

I hope that clarifies a few things.

__________________
Think About It

Why the assumption that there are anomalies to be found?

What does belief have to do with determining if something is anomalous? The only way to reach a reasoned conclusion is through the examination of evidence...belief is irrelevant.

Discussion of Sitchinism is not allowed on this board.

More than you know...

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

Why indeed then, the assumption that there aren't? To me there is only data. I'm interested to see whether any of it is anomalous because that is what is of interest to me at this moment. A lot of new discoveries are made only when data is observed to anomalous.

__________________
Think About It

I disagree. It has been argued at a semantic level that disbelief is itself a belief system. For example, someone might 'believe' that there is no possibility for historical archeo-astronomical anomalous data to exist on planet Earth and thereby they approach the subject from the confines of that rigid mindset.

I agree that an examination of the evidence is better than the adoption of a rigid belief system.

__________________
Think About It

Is that a rigid belief system? I.e., do you rigidly believe that examination of evidence is always better?

Also, in cases where examination of the evidence produces no support for a claim, would you consider this justification for disbelieving the claim, on account of the results of your examination of the evidence? What about when examination of the evidence produces support for belief in a counter-claim, that contradicts and rules out the original claim? Would disbelief in the original claim be warranted in that scenario, or would you prefer to maintain a non-rigid agnosticism?

Fair enough and my post has been modified accordingly, not that it really matters, as the issue was only raised as an example of archeological data that is claimed by some to be anomolous for its time.

Understood. Accordingly, let's end any further discussions between us on this matter. Thanks for your comments though.

Similarly, I've found out what I needed to know concerning the pole shift reversal theory and its origins commencing at the start of the last century. so thanks to all above for the links to the supporting data. Apologies for where I've gone off the permitted topic boundaries especially if that has caused any offence.

__________________
Think About It

Nice one, Stutefish: that's actually quite cool. I'm going to study that last paragraph awhile and maybe have a think about it, aside though from saying that "yes, I'd always be swayed by an examination of the available data and the interpretations to be drawn from it." I'm not sure I know of a better way of doing things really.

Let me though rephrase my quote then as follows:

"An examination of the evidence is better than the adoption of a rigid belief system which would preclude any examination of the evidence in the first place." This is definitely a belief system I do hold.

Evidently, there are a considerable number of 'preclusions' associated with discussion on this board, and which I have inadvertently failed to comply with thoroughly enough: I should have checked the FAQ no doubt and so do apologise again. But its best I withdraw forthwith: that's another 'belief system' I have concerning these matters.

Regards, Big Blue

__________________
Think About It

You're calling Swift's guesswork--even though you do not know that it was. You're assuming that because it is outside the scientifically possible, for the time. So, why couldn't the Dogon stuff be guesswork? Nevermind the contamination issue, I mean, the point in contention is just that Sirius has a companion--it's the brightest star in the sky, of course there's two of them there! That's about as simple of a leap as what people say Swift did (I don't think they have conclusive evidence that's what he did).

Thanks for your comment and point taken: no way am I attempting to knock Swift! I based my comment only on the original way that the Swift 'issue' was raised on this board in the first place. Perhaps if I swap 'quesswork' for 'interpolation' or 'modelling' or whatever it was he that he did to make his deduction then that may come over better? My contention is that at that period of time there was probably enough astronomical data around (and reasonably good equipment too) to extrapolate, interpolate, numerate or whatever you want about the number of moons on all of the planets in the (known) Solar System. But as you rightly say, I've not actually checked the data in this case, so that would need to be done to compare what he actually predicted and what was knowable at the time etc. (c.f. the Cayce polar reversal issue above which has actually been concluded to my satisfaction.)

Fair enough too, if you are saying that The Dogon 'myth' is in fact totally deductable based on naked eye observations that can be made of the Sirius star system from Africa; believe it or not, based on the high standard of astronomy associated with this board, then that's actually good enough for me at this stage. The myth is always stated as not being possible though - hence why I raised it here.

I was actually hoping to get plenty of other of so-called archeo-astronomical 'anomalies' that I've read about raised and then batted away by the astronomers here, as succintly as possible. But best leave it be I reckon, I know when I'm singing out of key.

Regards and anon, Big Blue

__________________
Think About It

No, not that it could be seen, just "guessed" at. But I'm reading (wiki) more about it, see if there's something more to it.I apologize. I guess I was just saying that Swift's idea was a good example--even though it can be explained away. I think that makes it a better example, even.

No need at all to apologise, and I really do appreciate your response above: thanks. I think we are probably agreed on the Swift thing!

I fully recognise that you guys on the board have just about had it with all kind of weird postulations and I was trying not to go too far off topic and take you backto places you've been (and don't want to return.) At all times I'm seeking the hard science that can knock all this stuff back, especially as I don't like loose ends! What I like about astronomy is that it is reasonably steady-state so we can always have a good idea about what was and wasn't 'knowable' for pretty much any era of mankind.

The Doggon myth has always interested me because in principle it hangs together reasonably well; well as much as these things probably can that is.

Cheers, Big Blue

__________________
Think About It