The Theory of Earth Crust Displacements
After reading the title, you might ask “do we have earth crust displacements then?” The answer on this question will be given in this very comprehensive, and maybe from time to time tough article.
The theory of earth crust displacements has been dumped into the corners of pseudo science in the early 60s after Wegener’s theory of plate tectonics was confirmed by evidence found on the ocean floors.
Professor Charles Hapgood claimed that the earth’s crust, which is relatively thin and light (part of the lithosphere), could shift over the hot, molten magma layer (astenosphere) on which it is believed to be floating. It was later said by scientists that there is no force strong enough to make such radical movements of the crust possible, and that only the very slow tectonic plate movements forms the earth’s crust, and thus the climatic events.
There is indeed no force strong enough to make very swift radical movements possible like Hapgood suggest, but he was ultimately true that Earth crust displacements are possible.
The Ruling Theories Result in Too Many Contradictions
At first hand seems the current ruling scientific view viable for most of the phenomena we witness on earth. The geological record provides irrefutable evidence that dramatic climate fluctuations have occurred throughout our planet’s history.
Charles Hapgood delivered a lifetime achievement with his book Earth’s Shifting Crust – A Key to Some Basic Problems of Earth Science. His book is interesting to read, written in simple language.
Geological evidence suggests that the climate had very mild periods, virtually from pole to pole. But how is that even possible when the sun is considered to be the only heat source? How can the sun heat the poles? This idea seems to be only possible when the earth would be heated from within, through convection.
Hapgood’s conclusions show enough reasons to do profound research on this issue, to find the truth.
Radical Changes Require Radical Forces or Vice Versa
While reading Hapgood’s book, you become convinced that Earth crust displacements are the only credible explanation for many phenomena like:
- the sudden waxing and waning of glaciations,
- the eccentricity of recent ice caps in relation to the geo poles,
- that Greenland was about 450,000 years ago really green, and covered in rich flora,
- the sudden extinction of flora and fauna,
- the sudden emergence of new species.
Hapgood’s treatise is much more detailed and profound then just the few actualities shown here. His style of research was original, intelligent, and very controversial. You can also call it out-of-the-mainstream ideas.
Why the Eccentric Ice Caps Requires an Explanation
When we look at the North pole in March, we see that the Gulf Stream warms the whole region denoted by N3, and partially N2 and N4. The Gulf Stream is very powerful.
What would happen when there wasn’t a Gulf Stream present?
The ice formation around the North pole would then become almost symmetric, and the Greenland Sea and Northern Atlantic would be completely frozen in Winter.
One could try to argue that during the last ice age there must have been a warm Gulf stream along the coasts of Alaska and Eastern Russia, pushing itself through the Bering Strait, making this ice formation around the pole acentric. But the seaway between Alaska and Russia is far to narrow for a Gulf Stream to pass through and become large enough to cause such a large asymmetry. This seaway was not even present during the last glaciation cycle due to the low sea level – there was a land bridge between North America and Russia.
It is crucial to understand that energy always flows from high to low, and not vice versa. The Warm Gulf stream is running in that region because it is a consequence of the second Law of Thermodynamics – restoring an energetic imbalance after a crustal dislocation. This process is still running today – the melting of Greenland.
The Warm Gulfstream will decrease in intensity after the situation at the North pole is returned to normal, and that is after the Greenland ice sheet is almost completely molten, which will still take some 4,000 years.
Why Science is Not Always Rational
One of the most serious dilemmas in Palaeontology is that Antarctica once had abundant subtropical flora and fauna, some 50 million years ago.
Science also tells us that Antarctica would be at its current location at that time. This leads us to the question: where was the solar light coming from to make this abundant, subtropical lifeforms possible? Mirrors in space maybe?
No, scientists came up with an even more ludicrous theory.
During six months there is hardly any solar light on Antarctica. The Milankovitch cycles are much too weak to explain anything regarding this issue (making the South pole lightly turn to the sun).
Scientists came up with the idea how trees and plants must have adapted to an almost complete lack of sun light. How does that work without photosynthesis?
Why don’t we see this adaptation happening today? Why do we still have taigas, tundras, and steppes and no tropical rain forests in Northern Siberia or Alaska? Or why don’t we see any trees growing on top of the Himalayas?
What we see happening here is that if one possibility is moved from the scene – crustal dislocations – they are replaced by the only left possibility – plants growing without solar light. These are irrational, unreliable, and adhoc theories. The tragic is that the general public believes these fantasies as to be true, which are broadcasted by the mainstream media, inflated with beautiful animations, like fairytales for adults.
There is no other way to explain these facts than with crustal dislocations.
More About the Pangaea Theory
The Pangaea theory was devised to explain how species migrated between the different continents.
Alfred Wegener, who was the (official) founder of the idea, saw that continents once could have fitted into eachother, like you can see on the photo on the right. It is believed to be 250 million years ago.
It is thought to be a cyclical event. Meaning, there could have been more “Pangaeas” before this one.
It is a simple, visually based theory that comes at hand, for the palaeontologists, to explain many things, like in this case the migration of species. Geologists later confirmed the theory after finding fault lines on ocean floors, driven apart by forces from within earth.
Why the Pangaea Theory is Incomplete
The theory tells us that Pangaea started to break apart, but not why and how it broke apart. A theory that lacks to explain why or how it happened is incomplete.
The theory can also be used at will. For example, it explains how different species could spread over the continents. But it can also explain why we find similar dolmens or pyramids on every continent, or name any other similar cultural phenomenon. Why is that? Because humans could spread all over the world and built their stone structures when Pangaea was still intact?
But because Pangaea was 250 million years ago, it is then dismissed as impossible. Which is using a theory according to whether it suits the inventors. This shows an inherent falsity at the core of science, which might be caused by the compartmentalization of science. Spreading of species is explained, while spreading of cultural similarities is instantaneously dismissed.
When the spreading of dolmens and pyramids all over the world is regarded as coincidence, why can’t we then regard spreading of species around the world as coincidence?
Continental drift is a fact, but Pangaea is an idea that cannot be verified by evidence or by any mathematical model. It is an immature visually based idea.
The Framework for Any Glaciation Theory
Hapgood mentions in his book, William Lee Stokes, a well known geologist and palaeontologist, who provided a framework that every theory has to meet when it wants to explain glaciations. A theory that neglects one or more items on this list can be regarded as unviable or incomplete.
- An initiating event or condition.
- A mechanism for cyclic repetitions or oscillations within the general period of glaciation.
- A terminating condition or event.
- It should not rely upon unprovable, unobservable, or unpredictable conditions when well-known or more simple ones will suffice.
- It must solve the problem of increased precipitation with colder climate.
- The facts call for a mechanism that either increases the precipitation or lowers the temperature very gradually over a period of thousands of years.
Hapgood believed that the theory of ice deposition at the poles could make the crust shift. Maybe it can play part in an increasing imbalance of the crust, but it cannot be the main cause of crustal dislocations. Why not?
Why Ice Deposition at the Poles Cannot Cause Large Crustal Dislocations
Asymmetrical ice depositions around the poles cause theoretically very large tangential pointed forces.
Since earth is a sphere, these eccentric forces can theoretically, when they occur around the poles, and are large enough, shift the crust (lithosphere) over the syrupy magma layer (asthenosphere).
Hapgood believed that the last ice ages at the Northern hemisphere caused the earth crust to shift. This idea was also formed after looking at the growing eccentricity on Antarctica.
But Hapgood’s theory is deeply conflicting in itself, and contains a circular reasoning:
A) If we look at the Northern ice sheet during the last ice age, with the idea that the geo pole was where it currently is, we see a very large eccentricity (see fig. 3). This eccentricity could be, according to Hapgood, responsible for a crustal shift. Because ice forms centric around the poles, how can it be responsible for imbalances?
B) How could this pole move from Greenland to its current location? Because we cannot seem to solve this large eccentricity other then positing the thesis that the pole was on Greenland a priori, we then automatically balance the ice sheet around the pole, making any eccentric forces impossible.
C) How could it then cause a crustal shift? Because the eccentric forces were neutralizing each other when the pole was on Greenland.
D) How can it be that Antarctica was moving to the geo pole? It was then making a counter movement, and thus proving that the contrary was happening.
You see here that the reasoning conflicts, hence dismissing the possibility that the ice sheets itself cause crustal displacements.
Milankovitch Cycles – A More Consistent Clue
Without any doubt was Hapgood right about radical, violent crustal dislocations. But his theory was incomplete, and moreover, it simply ignored many contemporary, clearly proven theories.
Milankovitch, for example, discovered already in the 1920s that the orbital cycles – eccentricity, obliquity, and precession – seemed to be in accordance with glacial cycles.
This lead to a typical ‘short circuit’ theory that the Milankovitch cycles in itself were responsible for the ice ages, although science still very poorly understands why Milankovitch’s cycles influence the climate on earth.
A Large ‘e’ Stands For Large Annual Gravitational Swings
Why Eccentricity is the Main Key to Understand Glaciations
The only factor in the Milankovitch cycles that seems to influence the amount of received solar energy is the changing eccentricity of earth’s orbit.
A sphere, which the earth is, doesn’t receive less energy when it is tilted or when it wobbles in any way. It still receives the same amount of solar energy. Eccentricity seems then to be the only key left to explain glaciations.
And even this phenomenon, when regarded over a period of one year doesn’t show changing incoming solar energy. Why not? Because the average distance to the sun doesn’t change over one year. The Aphelion a(1+e) and the Perihelion a(1-e) always result in 2 × a, meaning that the net result of collected solar energy over one years stays the same. And since glaciations cover periods of tens of thousands of years, there’s no way to explain how the amount of incoming solar energy ever can change.
We can easily see there’s a huge dilemma here, because the curve fittings of the Milankovitch cycles and glaciation cycles show a perfect match.
Temperature Proxies (δ18O) and Eccentricity
What is the Relation Between δ18O and Eccentricity?
The δ18O samples (Foraminifera shells) taken from the ocean floor serve as very good temperature indicators. It is not difficult to overlook the similarity of patterns between the two curves. The curves have to be well superimposed to make the similarities clear.
We see that the highs of the red curve correspond to the lows of the black curve. δ18O is somewhat tricky. Low values stand for high temperatures and vice versa. The explanation behind this mechanism can be explained as: If the eccentricity of earth’s orbit around the sun runs above a certain value, the temperature proxies start to drop radically (temperature goes up).
But why? Since the annual solar energy doesn’t change?
What Paleontologists measured was not the real temperature, but the proxy of that temperature. When the proxies (the shells) were moved from one region (latitude) to another, this is not visible, and could easily be misinterpreted as a temperature change. While in fact the sample were displaced to another climatic zone.
The crust was heavily deformed as a response to the increasing tidal forces which was the effect of a large eccentric orbit. The proxies reacted on that crustal shift. A change in latitude means a change in temperature.
Mind you that this possibility has been ignored by both geologists and paleontologists, which is a tragic error.
Another Proxy – δD and Eccentricity
Another proxy from the ice cores of Dome-C on Antarctica shows the same kind of pattern, although this proxy works different, it also relates to temperature change.
We see that the highs of the red curve correspond to the highs of the blue curve.
It is clear, and not very difficult to verify, that the eccentricity of earth’s orbit triggers an event that is interpreted by scientist as a glaciation, while it was a crustal shift.
It is not unthinkable though that a large eccentric orbit ‘massages’ earth’s interior more strongly, so that the earth starts to warm up from the inside. Convection from the inside might warm the crust a little. It can also make the syrupy astenosphere more fluid, which might cause the crust to ‘moonwalk’ over the magma, under influence of a large tidal oscillation. One thing is sure – science really has to get to work, and stop this silly whining over carbon induced warming.
The smaller temperature changes in between the large peaks can be easily explained by many less impactive events like varying solar activity, Heinrich events, changes in ocean circulation, etcetera.
Additional Effects – Annual Extreme Weathering
Why These Extremes Cause Crustal Shifts
When the eccentricity of earth’s orbit increases, it doesn’t influence the annual amount of received solar energy, but it does influence gravitation between the earth and the sun significantly.
- The larger the eccentricity becomes, the larger the temperature differences over one year. To understand the effects, look at deserts – hot at daylight, cold at night, resulting in erosive, rock splitting conditions.
- Depending of the tilt and precession during an extreme eccentricity, some parts of the globe are subjected to more extremes than other parts. Resulting in local expansion (heating) and local contraction (cooling).
- The closer earth gets to the sun, the harder the sun is pulling. This causes extreme tidal oscillations.
This latter effect is the main driver behind crustal deformations. Once the tidal forces are large enough, the lithosphere is able to break loose from its syrupy under layer, and starts to dislocate.
This phenomenon might also trigger dislocations of the outer (liquid metal) core, a phenomenon that we currently witness as a wandering magnetic pole.
How Earth’s Rotation Currently Varies
Current Fluctuations of Earth’s Rotation
The graph above shows how annually the earth’s rotation varies just a little bit. This variation is induced by the changing distance to the sun, which is also determined by the collective momentum of our entire solar system. When the earth gets somewhat closer to the sun, the rotation slows down with about 2 milliseconds. When it moves further away, the rotation speed goes up again.
The overall loss in speed, visible in the graph by the overall downward trend, is energy which is transferred to the moon. The result is that the moon slowly moves away from the earth, while increasing its rotational speed.
This coherent system is mathematically amazing complex, and still very poorly understood by science.
The variation in annual rotation speed seems very tiny, but it represents an amazing amount of energy: 9.93·1021 Joule . The total global energy consumption in 2015 is estimated to be about 6.5·1020 Joule. This unnoticeable small fraction in Earth’s rotational variations is about 15 times more powerful than the total global energy consumption.
Sometimes you have to see things in their true perspectives.
: Erot = ½·I·(ω12– ω22); I = 8.04×1037kg·m2; ω1 = 7.2934778604×10-5 rad/s; ω2 = 7.2934780297×10-5 rad/s
Earth’s Inner is a Composition of Layers
Rotation Speed of the Earth Varies
Once you understand that the rotation speed of the earth partially depends on the distance to the sun, it is not difficult to see that this influences the force on the different shells of earth’s inner.
Many people regard the earth as one solid object, while it consists of three solid shells that are rotational connected to eachother by two liquid intermediate layers.
All three solid components will react differently to increasing tidal oscillation.
Because their densities are very different. The inner core is very heavy, while the crust is very light. This results in different reactions to an eccentric orbit.
Eccentricity and glaciations are clearly one and the same.
The Ultimate Cause of Crustal Shifts
When the tidal oscillations exceeds a certain threshold, one or more of the solid layers can lose its connections with one of the liquid layers. This happens when one of the liquid layers is not able to transfer the momentum between one of the solid layers.
And this oscillation forcecauses the earth’s crust to shift and deform.
As with a spinning top, when a force is exercised in one direction, it will react perpendicular to that force. This is why we see that the crust has shifted mainly in latitudinal direction, and not in longitudinal direction.
The most inner core is solid and very heavy, it won’t react as fiercely to tidal oscillations as the very light and brittle outer shell, the crust. The crust is connected to a tough syrupy asthaenosphere that won’t loose its grip that easy.
© 2016-2018 by Buildreps
First published: March 2, 2016