What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Missed out on the best electronic deals last Black Friday? view!
newegg.com - Newegg.com's Cyber Monday Promotion has you covered. No Lines, No Crowds; Just Click and Save.
41 Comments
- bulgingbritches, on 11/04/2009, -1/+29Maybe the pole is fixed and everything else is moving around it. Like a strip club.
- psunut5, on 11/04/2009, -1/+20Santa must get pissed...
I wonder if he has 4 houses. - ayeroxor, on 11/04/2009, -1/+20B.P.? Is this like "Negro/Colored/Black/African-American"? It has to constantly change? BCE wasn't good enough?
- eastwood24, on 11/03/2009, -3/+18the transition from 3 to 4 does a lot to justify why the glaciers retreated in North America and why the great lakes are freshwater.
- jerryjamesstone, on 11/03/2009, -1/+15I just like the pretty picture!
- wdfadude, on 11/04/2009, -4/+17 Maybe BCE (Before Common Era) was just too close to BC (Before Christ) for some loons out there who are anti-religion.
- amonle, on 11/03/2009, -0/+10Earth crust displacement is an interesting theory, but the big question is _how_?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_crust_displacem ... - paukee, on 11/04/2009, -0/+10read what the description says:
The Pole shift hypothesis is not to be confused with geomagnetic reversal, the periodic reversal of the Earth's magnetic field (effectively switching the north and south magnetic poles). Geomagnetic reversal has more acceptance in the scientific community than pole shift hypotheses. The Pole shift hypothesis is almost always discussed in the context of Earth, but other bodies in the Solar System may have experienced axial reorientation during their existences. The theory says that the outer crust of the Earth has moved several times in the past and would move in the future, just as the loosely peeled skin of an orange (or avocado) could be slid around the stationary inner fruit.
Charles Hutchins Hapgood (1904 – December 1982) was an American academician, and one of the best known advocates of the Pole shift theory. Based primarily on accepted, technical data, Hapgood argued that each shift took approximately 5,000 years, followed by 20,000 to 30,000 year periods with no polar movements. Also, in his calculations, the area of movement never covered more than 40 degrees. Using geomagnetic and carbon dating evidence, he identified the locations of the pole and its paths. (see image!) - However, in popular literature, many theories have been suggested involving very rapid polar shift. So, while debate continues on the speed at which the poles have changed, the fact of their shift seems well established. It also appears that the shift will continue, as it likely has for millennia, as part of a cycle we are just now beginning to understand.
In 1958 Hapgood published his first book, The Earth's Shifting Crust in collaboration with James H. Campbell, a mathematician and engineer. Here we find a foreword by Albert Einstein shortly before his death: "His idea is original, of great simplicity, and if it continues to prove itself of great importance to everything that is related to the history of the earth's surface. I think that this rather astonishing, even fascinating, idea deserves the serious attention of anyone who concerns himself with the theory of the Earth's development."
"Shifting North Pole" data is from:
www.viewzone.com/changingpoles.html
+ www.crystalinks.com/crustal.html - Quisquis, on 11/04/2009, -1/+11What's the source of this? the wiki article linked a few comments up suggests the flickr picture is garbage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_crust_displacem ...
800million years ago versus 82000 years ago... - RabidSkwirl, on 11/04/2009, -3/+13uhmm I make maps for a living and this is a fact, not a theory.
- Asrrin29, on 11/04/2009, -4/+12This picture is very confusing and at worst an outright lie. First off it needs to clarify if it is talking about magnetic north or true north. from the picture implying number 4 is our current position, it looks as though it is referring to true north. If that's the case, this picture is patently false because the true north (defined as the direction our axis of rotation tilts in reference to the sky) precesses in a 24,000 year rotation varying from pointing at Polaris to the Vega and back. because the crust of earth is a nearly rigid body it's almost impossible for it's alignment during rotation to change due to angular momentum.
After thinking a little more, it could be possible that this article is attempting to use a frame of reference of the shifting plates rather then of the actual pole itself, but that posses a problem with why the artist choose the landmass shapes as he did. I still think it doesn't work out, but I'm an budding astronomer, not a geologist, so I'll leave that determination up to someone else.
And if this picture is attempting to point out the magnetic north, then it's very out of date, as magnetic north is several degrees away from true north, lying somewhere in the north American continent in Canada. - MrTsLoveChild, on 11/04/2009, -1/+8"And next up on stage...give a warm welcome to...Muuuuutha Eaaarrrrrrrrth! Shake that equator, baby!"
- trogdoor, on 11/04/2009, -0/+6theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=theor ... - Indoman, on 11/04/2009, -0/+6Before Present (BP) years are a time scale used in archaeology, geology, and other scientific disciplines to specify when events in the past occurred. Because the "present" time changes, standard practice is to use 1950 as the arbitrary benchmark of what's considered "present". "BP" may also be considered to be an abbreviation of Before Physics.[1] For example, 1500 BP means 1500 years before 1950, that is, in the year 450.
Beginning in 1954, metrologists established 1950 as the origin year for the BP scale for use with radiocarbon dating using a 1950-based reference sample of oxalic acid:
The problem was tackled by the international radiocarbon community in the late 1950s, in cooperation with the U.S. National Bureau of Standards. A large quantity of contemporary oxalic acid di-hydrate was prepared as NBS Standard Reference Material (SRM) 4990B. Its 14C concentration was ca. 5 % above what was believed to be the natural level, so the standard for radiocarbon dating was defined as 0.95 times the 14C concentration of this material, adjusted to a 13C reference value of –19 per mil (PDB). This value is defined as “modern carbon” referenced to AD 1950. Radiocarbon measurements are compared to this modern carbon value, and expressed as “fraction of modern” (fM); and “radiocarbon ages” are calculated from fM using the exponential decay relation and the “Libby half-life” 5568 a. The ages are expressed in years before present (BP) where “present” is defined as AD 1950. [2]
The year 1950 was chosen because it is the year in which calibration curves for radiocarbon dating were established, and also to honor the publication of the first radiocarbon dates in December 1949[3]. The year 1950 is also convenient because it predates large scale atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons, which altered the global ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12.[4]
The BP scale is now in common use for dates established by means other than radiocarbon dating. The practice of anchoring "the present" at 1950 is generally followed, although times in the distant past (e.g., 500,000 BP) typically have uncertainties high enough that the difference between 1950 and the actual present year is insignificant. - sipsyrup, on 11/04/2009, -0/+5I hate to break it to you... But yes, he does have 4 houses.
- markgl, on 11/04/2009, -0/+5Treasure maps?
- Infowarsdotcom, on 11/04/2009, -0/+4It could easily affect climate more than all of human activity combined. Without our magnetic field we're completely unshielded from solar wind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetosphere#Earth.2 ... - Myztry, on 11/04/2009, -0/+4Next they'll be claiming the tectonic plates move...
- Stimman, on 11/04/2009, -1/+52012
- LBWayward, on 11/04/2009, -3/+7Is this the rotational pole or the magnetic pole?
- alpha88, on 11/04/2009, -2/+6Saying all people who are anti-religion are loons is loony. I think religion is a stupid idea, but I'm fine with B.C.
- Zoshchenko, on 11/04/2009, -0/+3No wonder I get lost so easily.
- wdfadude, on 11/04/2009, -2/+4Paranor01, I agree with your last statement, but BCE has been around for decades. Why not just use that? Why do we need a "political correctness" police to come around every so often and change things?
alpha88, I never said all people who are anti-religion are loons. Just the small sliver of wacko activists (and all political and social groups & movements have these) who feel like they have to squeeze all references to religion out of society just because it might offend their tiny group? Whatever happened to "tolerance"? - Paranor01, on 11/04/2009, -5/+7wouldn't call all anti-religious loons.
it is nice to have terms that cannot be easily associated with religion though. - Seronis, on 11/06/2009, -0/+2caught in a landslide ?
- ampdj89, on 11/05/2009, -0/+2Looks like it calibrated itself perfectly.
- chazuk, on 11/05/2009, -0/+2Is this just fantasy?
- jaypatel, on 11/04/2009, -1/+3i like that current position is exactly at the center
- RabidSkwirl, on 11/04/2009, -0/+2nevermind I thought this was referring to magnetic poles but its not
- Inspectorkemp, on 11/04/2009, -0/+1Lol... you just made my day psunut5
- BigManOnCampus, on 11/04/2009, -0/+1You're displaying ignorance here. It is forgivable because the sort of knowledge used to understand this is not exactly common knowledge.
Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession
Yes, earth's true north pole actually (precesses) moves relative to the stars/orbit, etc.. Now, it is not too far of a leap to assume that since the crust of the earth can shift around on top and most of the mass of the earth is molten and liquid that the position of true north with regards to our accepted global map may have moved around.
Is this proven? hell I dunno. But they're not talking about magnetic north, and what they say is plausible. - chazuk, on 11/06/2009, -0/+1No escape from reality.
- Enterres, on 11/04/2009, -0/+13114 BC
- Atario, on 11/05/2009, -0/+1Yeah, those loons in 1715 were nuts, huh?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era#Origins
Also, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, etc. All those anti-religious loons. - THEKapnobatai, on 11/04/2009, -0/+1No, you're in the Matrix.
- MrTsLoveChild, on 11/04/2009, -1/+2how would a shifting magnetic pole affect the Earth? i never knew about this.
- nutsackninja, on 11/04/2009, -2/+3I call BS we all know the earth is only 6000 years old.
- THEKapnobatai, on 11/04/2009, -1/+2Yeah and the other positions were the exact center when it happened!
- somebodyscream, on 11/04/2009, -3/+3Is this real life?
- Atario, on 11/05/2009, -1/+1Why are people burying you? That's what it stands for, and it clearly doesn't mean the same thing as BC/BCE.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Before_Present
Some diggers are morons, I guess. - paukee, on 11/04/2009, -8/+6B.P. = before present
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is