Many who have looked into our known ancient history have noticed the tremendous amount of colossal monuments that are believed to have been built in a relatively short period of time. And it is said that this was done without wheels, without having proper cranes, without serious mathematical knowledge, i.e. the structures were built by primitive barbarians. But these so-called illiterate barbarians have built monuments that in this day and age are even for us difficult to reproduce, despite our modern technology. Our unique research has revealed deeply hidden secrets of our ancient past and has astonished many people around the world.
Support our work and discover more:Become a Patron!
The Theory of Earth Crust Displacements
After reading the title, you might ask “Do we actually have earth crust displacements?” The answer to this question will be given in this very comprehensive, and maybe sometimes hard-to-accept article.
In the early 60s, the theory of earth crust displacements has been relegated by academia into the corners of pseudoscience, after Wegener’s theory of plate tectonics was confirmed by evidence found at the bottom of our oceans.
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, (asthenosphere) 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 influence the earth’s crust, and thus the climatic events.
There is indeed no force strong enough to make very swift radical crust movements possible, as Hapgood suggests, but he was ultimately correct when he said that Earth crust displacements are possible.
The Ruling Theories Result in Too Many Contradictions
At first hand, it seems that the current ruling scientific view is 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 is heated from within, through convection.
Hapgood’s conclusions show enough reasons to conduct profound research into this issue, to find the truth.
The Glaciation Ice Sheets Were Concentrically Formed Around Greenland
Radical Changes Require Radical Forces or Vice Versa
After reading Hapgood’s book, you might be 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 really green and covered in rich flora about 450,000 years ago
- the sudden extinction of flora and fauna
- the sudden emergence of new species.
Hapgood’s treatise is much more detailed and profound than the few topics shown here. His style of research was original, intelligent, and very controversial. These are truly out-of-the-box ideas.
Why the Eccentric Icecaps Requires an Explanation
Looking at the North pole in March, we see that the Gulf Stream warms the whole region denoted by N3, and partially by N2 and N4. The Gulf Stream is a very powerful influencing factor.
What would happen without a Gulf Stream being 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 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 too 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 – causing 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 gone, which will take at least another 4,000 years.
Why Science is Not Always Rational
One of the most serious dilemmas in Palaeontology is that some 50 million years ago, Antarctica had abundant subtropical flora and fauna.
Science also tells us that at that time, Antarctica was, and still is, at its current location. This leads us to the question: Where was the solar light coming from to make these abundant, subtropical lifeforms possible? Mirrors in space maybe?
No, scientists came up with an even more ludicrous theory.
During six months, there is very little solar light present on Antarctica. The Milankovitch cycles are much too weak to explain anything regarding this issue (making the South pole slightly inclined to the sun).
Scientists concocted the idea how trees and plants must have adapted to an almost complete lack of sunlight. 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 rainforests in Northern Siberia or Alaska? Or why don’t we see trees growing on top of the Himalayas?
What we see happening with these outlandish theories is this: If one possibility is removed from the scene – crustal dislocations – then there remains only one other possibility, namely plants growing without solar light.
These are irrational, unreliable, and ad-hoc theories. The tragic outcome is that the public believes these fantasies to be true, and mainstream media endlessly broadcasts them around the globe, inflated with beautiful animations, like fairy tales for adults.
There is no way to explain the above-mentioned facts other than with crustal dislocations.
About the Pangaea Theory
The Pangaea theory was devised to explain how species migrated between the different continents.
Alfred Wegener, who was the official originator of this idea, saw that continents could have once fit into each other like you can see in the image on the right. This is the situation as it is believed to have existed 250 million years ago.
It is thought to be a cyclical event, meaning that there could have been more than one “Pangaea” before this one.
It is a simple, visually-based theory that comes in handy for the paleontologists to explain many things, 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 the 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 something happened is incomplete.
The theory can also be used at will. For example, it tries to explain how different species could spread over the continents. It also explains why we find similar dolmens or pyramids on every continent or one could name any other similar cultural phenomena. Why is that? Because humans could conceivably 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 summarily dismissed as impossible. Academia uses a theory when it is convenient. 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 the spreading of cultural similarities gets instantaneously dismissed.
When the proliferation of dolmens and pyramids all over the world is regarded as a coincidence, why can’t we then regard the propagation 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
As Hapgood mentions in his book, William Lee Stokes, a well-known geologist and paleontologist, provided a framework which every theory must 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 a 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 a part in an increasing imbalance of the crust, but it cannot be the main cause of crustal dislocations. So, why not?
Why Ice Deposition at the Poles Cannot Cause Large Crustal Dislocations
Asymmetrical ice depositions around the poles could theoretically cause very large tangential forces.
Since the earth is a sphere, these eccentric forces can theoretically shift the crust (lithosphere) over the hypothetical syrupy magma layer (asthenosphere) – but only when they occur in the region of the poles and are large enough.
Hapgood believed that the last ice ages in the Northern hemisphere caused the earth crust to shift. The growing eccentricity on Antarctica also reinforced this idea.
But Hapgood’s theory is deeply conflicting, and contains 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). According to Hapgood, this eccentricity could be responsible for a crustal shift. Because ice forms concentrically around the poles, how can it be responsible for imbalances?
B) How could this pole move from Greenland to its current location? We cannot seem to solve this large eccentricity other than by proposing the thesis that the pole was on Greenland a priori. We automatically tend to 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 the reasoning conflicts, hence we must dismiss the possibility that the ice sheets cause crustal displacements.
Milankovitch Cycles – A More Consistent Clue
Without any doubt, Hapgood was correct regarding 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 step with glacial cycles.
This leads to a typical ‘short circuit’ theory that the Milankovitch cycles by themselves were responsible for the ice ages, although science still very poorly understands why Milankovitch’s cycles influence the climate on earth at all.
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, like our earth, does not 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, does not show changing incoming solar energy. Why not? Because the average distance to the sun does not 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 year stays the same. And since glaciations cover periods of tens of thousands of years, there is no way to explain how the amount of incoming solar energy can ever change.
We can easily see that there is a huge dilemma here because the curves of the Milankovitch cycles and glaciation cycles show a perfect match – one fits into the other.
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 a little difficult to spot the similarity of patterns between the two curves. The curves must 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 follows: If the eccentricity of earth’s orbit around the sun runs above a certain value, then the temperature proxies start to drop radically (temperature goes up).
But why – since the annual solar energy does not 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 was 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.
Unfortunately, this possibility has been ignored by both geologists and paleontologists, and that 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 differently, and it also relates to temperature changes.
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 triggered an event that is interpreted by scientists as a glaciation, but in reality, it was a crustal shift.
However, it is not unthinkable 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. Under influence of a large tidal oscillation, it can also make the syrupy asthenosphere more fluid, which might cause the crust to ‘moonwalk’ over the “lubricated” magma. One thing is sure – science must get down to serious work and stop this silly whining over carbon-induced warming.
The smaller temperature changes between the large peaks can easily be explained by many less impactive events like varying solar activity, Heinrich events, changes in ocean circulation, etc.
Additional Effects – Annual Extreme Weathering
Why These Extremes Cause Crustal Shifts
When the eccentricity of earth’s orbit increases, it does not influence the annual amount of received solar energy, but it does significantly influence gravitational effects between the earth and the sun.
- 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 on the tilt and precession during an extreme eccentricity, some parts of the globe are subjected to more extremes than other parts, resulting in the local expansion (heating) and local contraction (cooling).
- The closer earth gets to the sun, the stronger the sun’s gravity will influence the earth. This causes extreme tidal oscillations.
This latter effect is the main driver behind crustal deformations. Once the tidal forces are large enough, the lithosphere can break loose from its syrupy underlayer and start to dislocate and to migrate.
This phenomenon might also trigger dislocations of the outer (supposedly 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 the earth’s rotation varies annually just a little. 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 by about 2 milliseconds. When it moves farther 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 amazingly complex and is 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 we must try 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 Body 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 composition.
Many people regard the earth as one solid object, while in reality, it consists of three solid shells that are rotationally connected to each other by two liquid intermediate layers.
All three solid components will react differently to increasing tidal oscillation. Why?
Because their densities are very different. The inner core is very heavy, while the crust is relatively 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 exceed a certain threshold, one or more of the solid layers can lose its/their connections with one of the liquid layers. This happens when one of the liquid layers is not able to transfer its momentum between one of the solid layers.
And this oscillation force causes the earth’s crust to shift and deform. This is something that geologists still have not noticed up to this day, while they spend untold millions of dollars on research each year. What research?
As with a spinning top, when a force is exercised in one direction, it will react perpendicularly to that force. Therefore, we see that the crust periodically shifts mainly in the latitudinal direction, and not in longitudinal direction.
The innermost core is (deemed to be) solid and very heavy. It will not react as energetically to tidal oscillations as the very light and brittle outer shell, the crust. The crust is connected to a tough syrupy asthenosphere that will not easily lose its grip.
© 2015 – by Mario Buildreps et al.
Proofreading and editing: J.B.