Lost Civilizations and Earth Crust Shifts
What Do You Know About
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.
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.
But only when we allow ourselves to look deep enough, we see too many contradictions and illogicalities.
When we look even deeper we will find phenomena that make radical movements possible, which is a scary idea, but there's no indication it will happen soon.
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. Sometimes is his style a bit wordy, but never without tons of data to backup his theory. On the other hand seems his style necessary to lead you out of the ruling paradigm. To show how things really are.
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.
Predecessors of This Article
- Why is Greenland Covered in Ice?
Greenland is covered in ice and no one knows why. Science has explanations, but most are absurd and even unscientific. The most rational explanation is explored in this article which is part of a series.
- How Old Are Pyramids Around the World?
Determining the age of a pyramid is not as easy as archaeologists claim. Stones cannot be dated in any way to determine the age of the structure. The most common way is to date artefacts and organic materials found in and around pyramids.
- Alignment of Pyramids to Former North Poles
This article proves via mathematics that the former North pole was located on Greenland. Pyramids around the world can be classified in time frames. Most pyramids are inescapably much, much older than always assumed.
There's no Current Explanation for the Eccentricity of Ice Ages
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 Age Requires an Explanation
When we look at the North pole in March, we see that the Warm Gulfstream warms the whole region denoted by N3, and partially N2 and N4. The Gulfstream is very powerful.
What would happen when there wasn't a Warm Gulfstream present?
The ice formation around the 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 Gulfstream 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 to pass through a Gulf Stream large enough to cause such a large asymmetry. The Bering Strait had to be at least 8 times wider.
It is crucial to understand that energy always flows from high to low, and not vice versa. The Warm Gulfstream 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 about 4,000 years.
Why Science is Not Always Rational
One of the most serious dilemmas in Palaeontology is that Antarctica once had abundant flora and fauna, already 150 million years after the splitting up of Pangaea.
Science tells us that Antarctica was at its current location at that time. This leads us to the question: where was the solar light coming from to make this abundant 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. Hm, without photosynthesis? How?
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.
© 2016 by Buildreps
First published: March 2, 2016