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
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[1]. 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.
[1]: 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.
https://mariobuildreps.com
Proofreading and editing: J.B.
33 Responses
Maybe I missed it, but can you share research evidence on global volcanic eruption periods (e.g. every 100,000 years or so) that might correlate potentially with the ice age cycles you describe? Perhaps a source for such geologic sample data, might be from Antarctic ice core analyses & or Antarctic continental shelf deposits {i.e. debris in melt off ice). I’m wondering what research evidence might exist to suggest coinciding volcanic activity & glaciation that correlates with tectonic earth expansions events and subsequent species die offs due in part to relatively fast (geologically speaking) changes in global atmospheric temperatures?
Hi Kioni, here is some more data showing that dust in the atmosphere follows the temperature changes, aka, the crustal deformations. Because dust follows on the temperature changes similar as CO2 does, it cannot be the cause of these changes.
“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?”
I always learned that Antarctica was conjoined with Pangea, and then split off and started moving to it’s polar position. What are your thoughts on this?
I just wonder what Hira Ratan Manek (sun gazing) would say about the power of the sun on the human psyche, and pineal gland enhancement as a source of ancient wisdom?
Hi, I really enjoyed your article. I am a student with a question. Its been a year since this article and recent news in Antarctica about the geomagnetic field weakening at an exponential rate plus the significant increase in 5+ Mag EQs around the globe daily have my curiosity. Is there a connection between weaker magnetic and increased tectonic activity? I’m a Psych student, but as Ive been in 3 major earthquakes in my life, tectonics obviously fascinates me. Mahalo!
Hi Kathryn, there might be indeed a connection between increased tectonic activity and weakening field strength. I’m not sure if the comparison is valid. A well phenomenon that we see in technology/science is that the magnetic field strength of an electric motor weakens when rotation speed of the motor increases. The field strength is at its highest at the moment that the motor just starts to run.
Weakening of the magnetic field seem to let moré Cosmic ray hit the planet.
If this energy heat the Mantle, you have the energy and the how , that are required to change the viscosity of the liquid.
Dear Mario, thanks for helping me in understanding the age of some of the monolithic structures in the Indian subcontinent.
I have now a new question though, regarding your explanation of the crustal deformation.
Grateful if you shed lights on this question.
Is it true that the crustal deformation has entirely been happening on the ocean floor, or both the terrestrial and the oceanic floors of the crust? If the latter is true, then what are the manifestations of land mass changes over the millions of years?
With kind regards, Karl
Hello Karl, the landmass is much more stable than the ocean floor. Expansion and so the driving force of crustal deformations happen mainly on the ocean floor.
Strong interest in Earth Crust Displacement needs to be maintained. It is the only explanation that answers many of the questions. I really believe the North Pole was located in Alaska 100,000 years ago.
Interesting Richard, based on which facts do you believe that the North was in Alaska 100ky ago?
Science seems to have confirmed that Jupiter’s alignment with Earth is responsible our magnetic reversals. Miles Mathis has previously fingered Jupiter as the culprit. https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=7406
http://milesmathis.com/mars.html
Thanks for posting the links, Kate. That is interesting and does not surprise me, because Jupiter is the largest planet in our solar system.
Hi Mario,
Thank you very much for this paper. I am going to read the Charles Hapgood book “Earth’s Shifting Crust”. I read amost half of the book. I have a good idea of his theory right now.
I think Moving the whole crust in one single piece sounds weird because of amount of Energy required (from deepest basins to highest mountains).
I think the responsible of climate Driving (so pole shift too) is the earth magnetic field.
Since January 2019, the escape of north magnetic pole is accelerating. Greenland is melting faster. I think Greenland is receiving more radiation from the sun, so that means the angle of sun rays should be higher.
You can read my paper on Linkdin: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-man-made-co2-scapegoat-good-news-eric-soum-pouyalet/
Do not hesitate to contact me to share theories.
Best Regards,
Eric
Thank you for your comment, Eric. Hapgood is a good introduction into the world of crustal displacement. The evidence is vastly ignored by academics, since it is very inconvenient. It is highly unlikely that the crust would deform evenly in one piece. It is also highly unlikely that a force (unevenly distributed ice around the spin axis) that exercises a force on a small part of the crust would make the whole crust to start moving in one piece. We know quite that Antarctica, due to recently found blue ice, is for a few million years around the spin axis. Hapgood’s theory is therefor good as an introduction into the phenomenon of crustal displacement, but it ignores virtually all good geological data.
Our research has shown that the Earth’s crust deforms by gravitational oscillations when the eccentric orbit around the Sun is high. You can find many more articles on our website regarding this topic.
I tested your link, it says “Page not found”.
Thank you very much!
Sorry for my late reply, i do not receive any notification of your message.
If you have an e-mail adress i can share my article in PDF format.
See you soon.
Eric
Where would I be able to read more about this effect? Or is it just visible in Figure 12 ?
“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.”
I found some information about this, but it did not mention that the rotational speed depends on the distance to the Sun.
It only shows it for the orbital speed.
https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/13575/changes-in-earths-orbital-and-rotation-speeds/13576#13576
There is little information available on this topic.
This image on Wikipedia shows the phenomenon in grey: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/Deviation_of_day_length_from_SI_day.svg
You see the grey line varies per year (about 2 ms) and this variance is caused by the distance to the sun. I believe there are formulas that try to approach the phenomenon and they are more or less designed by trial-and-error.
There is this data file: http://hpiers.obspm.fr/eoppc/eop/eopc04/eopc04.62-now
And there is this page on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Earth_Rotation_and_Reference_Systems_Service
There is more study done to tidal locking than to variance in rotation speed due to eccentricity. This might help you to understand this mechanism better: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
Do you know this recent research of Karl Zeller and Ned Nikolov? The seem to have used a similar approach by merely looking at data patterns.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63QBeDdk4ww&t=469s
The conclusion of their research is that the temperature of any planet in the solar system depends only on 2 parameters. These are the distance between the planet and the Sun and the pressure of the atmosphere of the planet that is looked at.
The pressure of the atmosphere in turn is a function of the kinetic energy of the planet. And because the distance to the Sun is the only parameter that influences the pressure and the temperature, it will probably also be the only parameter that influences the kinetic energy of the planet. In other words, it seems that the Sun is responsible for the rotation of a planet in the solar system.
At least this how it appears to me.
And there seems to be a balance mechanism in which the planet responds to the energy and radiation fluctuations of the Sun.
Thanks, Kenneth. That sounds interesting. I will take a look at it!
That is great! I am curious to learn what any data would show about this. Just some more ideas:
If the Sun is responsible for the rotation of a planet, the electromagnetic field of this planet would be the effect of its rotation.
Also referring to the research that shows that the core of the Earth is rotating in the opposite direction, it seems there is a rotational balance in the planets as well. Which means that if the planet starts to rotate faster, this could be the case only for the outer layer while the inner core could react to this by slowing down to keep the balance. Although I expect that the rotational speed of the core first slows down with the effect that the outer layer speeds up.
Hi Mario, thank you for your last explanation. It makes perfect sense to me now.
Would it be possible to measure some kind of oscillation in the liquid layers?
This could be a proxy of the level in which the different solid layers are capable to keep up with the changes in rotational speed.
When eccentricity is 0 this oscillation would not be there,
Yes, there are proxies available, maybe not directly by looking at the core. Slow processes require long time observations, and these are not available yet for the core. I think the best proxies we currently have are volcanic and seismic activity and the agility of the magnetic poles.
Hi again, sorry if I am too enthusiastic about this, but I just had another idea that I want to share.
You show the amplitude of the eccentricity in all of the graphs. But does this eccentricity also have a frequency when you would zoom in on it? The eccentricity is caused by different gravitational fields acting on the earth. I can imagine this creates some kind of up and down movement between the 2 largest bodies acting on the earth.
So the excentricity would have an amplitude and a frequency when zoomed in on it. This frequency would get higher when the amplitude of the excentricity geta higher. And above a certain value it would reach the resonance frequency of the layer of the earth that holds the crust. That is the second condition for the crust to be able to deform. Just like the example of a bridge that starts to resonate and deform because of strong wind that puts the structure in its own resonant frequency. In that case stronger winds that do not put the bridge in its resonant frequency don’t deform the bridge, while weaker winds could deform the bridge when they work in resonance.
In the case of the crust deformation, the resonance frequency of the crust is only reached from a certain amplitude of the eccentricity. And the frequency always stays within certain limits, which is the reason that only the crustal layer of the earth can deform.
The amplitude of the eccentricity is shown as a proxy in the ice core data.
To be short on your question: no. There is no other amplitude or frequency superpositioned upon the eccentricity I show in the graphs. Every eccentricity cycle no matter how small causes a certain deformation to the crust and the magnitude of damage is proportional to the magnitude of eccentricity. You say it perfectly well, the amplitude is factored in the ice core data. Here are Milankovitch data one million years in the past and one million years into the future: https://mariobuildreps.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/milankovitch.data_.xlsx
There are no indications of smaller frequencies within the existing frequency, and that is logical; planetary orbits are too massive for smaller frequencies to be possible. The rough ride that is waiting for our society within a few millennia from now is predictable. The migration of the North pole will be around 8 to 9 degrees towards Russia. The rest of the crust will bend, break, and deform and will not be as much displaced as the North pole. But after this rough ride is over we will have totally been forgotten who we are and where we came from. Everything starts all over again and let’s hope next time humanity progresses quicker than we have done in the past.
The rise and fall of humanity is tragic but maybe this is just part of the cyclical character of nature.
Thank you for explaining why my idea is wrong.
I don’t fully understand yet how the annual change of gravity between the Sun and the Earth causes tidal oscillations.
It seems to me that the Sun pulls on the Earth, and the amplitude of this pulling is not constant during a year but ranges from low to higher when the Earth gets closer to the Sun? And that this is the tidal oscillation that is described?
For me it is easier to understand that the rotation speed of the Earth varies because of this and that the different layers of the Earth respond differently to that.
Following is that each layer of the earth has a different mass and so a different moment of inertia and is responding to this tidal oscillation / change in rotation speed, differently and this causes the different parts to get loose and shift relative from one another? With the crust having the lowest mass and so being the only part that can be put out of its position. And possibly also the most outer liquid core.
Does the rotation speed changes of the Earth correlate with the gravitation changes between the Sun and the Earth?
And then the parts of the crustal layer that are in an area that grows and that are relatively heavy such as the Greenland ice cap will be the most affected?
You might have to study the mechanisms of orbital eccentricity. When eccentricity is 0, we have a circular orbit. The minor body (earth) moves at a homogeneous speed, and there are no changes in gravitation between both bodies (earth and sun). There are no fluctuations in forces. When eccentricity is >0, the earth moves closer to the sun (perihelion) and starts to speed up and starts to spin faster. This process causes frictional forces within the massive body that the earth is.
Gravitation increases (quadratically) between both bodies because they are closer to each other. Other effects complicate this process, the rotation speed of the earth increases – it starts to spin faster. Increasing spin speed has indeed different effects on different layers, which is altogether a very complex mechanism of forces. Every layer of the earth responds differently to this process because of their different moments of inertia, not only due to their different diameters but also due to their different densities.
At aphelion, the earth has moved away from the sun and gravity between both bodies has decreased (quadratically). The earth starts to spin slower and earth’s speed through space is lower. Within a time frame of only one year, this mix of forces is not without effects. The earth is sort of massaged by this mix of forces, and this massaging effect interferes with rotation.
What we call gravitational oscillation is the sum of all processes that occur only within one year during an eccentric orbit cycle. The higher the eccentricity the higher the sum of all processes. We have only scratched the surface with our method.
There seem to be 7 universal laws. And these can be found by studying repeating patterns in nature, which is most probably what the ancients did just like we do.
2 of these laws are used throughout your research. The first one that is used in your research is the law of cause and effect. And the other one that is used is the law of dynamic balance. This is combined with very smart use of available data and mathematics.
But possibly the other universal laws can also be used.
Thank you for your comments, Kenneth. That is indeed true what you mention. It is unofficially one of our secrets.:) Once you know how to apply the laws you can apply them to everything.
There are seven universal laws according to the Hermetic teachings. The esoteric teachings are as old as humanity itself. Not only the two laws that you mention are applied, but also the law of Mentalism (mathematics in general, there is nothing material, only mathematics, mathematics is the fabric of everything), Correspondence (relation between pole movements and ice ages), Vibration (nothing rests, everything moves), Polarity (North and South pole), Rhythm (the rhythmic changes of the crust on eccentricity). I don’t know yet how to apply gender. Maybe is this the relationship between the Sun and the Earth.
Ah wow. In that case I do expect some more major scientific discoveries from you and your team 🙂
As for gender, this could be the difference between an energy sender and a receiver. Just some idea of mine, but I consider the Sun to be the sender of energy, which in turn receives it from a greater power. And the Earth is a receiver of the Sun’s energy, and in turn a sender.
I did read a long book about the universal laws and I remember it also said something that there are always greater power that can not be manipulated by the lower powers. Other books that I read which were more spiritual consider the Earth to be a child of the Sun. Personally, I feel that all the planets are just a family like a human family with children, parents and grand parents.
Ah this was the information that I missed about the oscillations.
I wondered for quite some time why the earth does spin in the first place. The conventional explanation does not seem to work for me.
Did you ever look at this question?
Maybe a combination of pushing and pulling forces that act at a distance from the spin axis as the magnetic poles are never coincident with the geographic poles? You would need a pushing force at the magnetic north pole and a pulling force at the other pole.
Maybe the position of the earth is determined and somewhat fixed by the surrounding planets, which creates the idea of a fixed spin axis. Eccentricity seems to be caused by gravitational forces exerted by other planets on the earth. So why could the relative position of the earth in the universe (or in our solar system) not be determined by the gravitational forces of the surrounding planets?
In other words, the gravitational fields of the different planets all determine their relative position.
The spin of the earth could mainly be caused by the electromagnetic forces of the sun which has the most direct influence?
I also recently read that the outer solid part of the earth does spin in the opposite direction of the inner solid part, creating a balance.
Hi Kenneth, the probability that a body in space, small or large, does NOT spin at all is incredibly small. Objects can interact with each other in numerous ways. A meteorite always spins no matter how small or how large. The initial spin can be the result of a collision, all sorts of imbalances, solar winds, magnetic fields that interact with ferromagnetic materials, or incredibly powerful nova outburst. Just to name of few possible causes of an object to get spinning in space. It is unlikely that science will ever know the cause of earth’s initial spin, in fact, no one can claim this with 100% certainty.
Accumulations of countless forces in space that interact on a celestial object cause changes in the initial spin and slowly a much more complicated spin evolves so to speak. The magnetic field is caused by the spinning action similar to a dynamo on a bicycle. Some people think that the earth spins due to the magnetic field but that is obviously incorrect because of small changes in the spinning action are followed by changes in the magnetic activity. The magnetic field lags on spinning hence is spinning the cause.
The gravitational interaction between the two celestial bodies is relatively simple. Between three suddenly becomes much more complicated, and more than three is so complicated there are no formulas discovered yet to describe this process. Milankovitch made numerical computations that increased our insights into how all the planets interact with each other. This gravitational interaction process between the planets and the sun are the cause of glaciation cycles on earth.
Regarding your last remark, I don’t know if that is true and if that is an established fact, or that this the opinion of someone.
Hi Mario, thank you for your explanation. It all makes sense to me. Still I have a strong feeling that this question is less complicated than we think and that the sun is the main cause for it as it is also the main cause for life being possible on our planet. The sun delivers all our energy and the maintaining the spinning movement requires energy.
I will try to describe a more detailed description of a possible model later.
I suspect that the ancients did know the reason for the spinning. And I think that it is quite easy to understand by following the universal laws.
The article about the core of the earth spinning in opposite direction can be found here:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130916162005.htm
Just like what you found out through the RSS data about the temperature balance of the atmosphere, there seems to be a balance between the different spinning parts of the earth.