Old Project Avalon Forum (ARCHIVE) - View Single Post

wfranzen · 01-12-2010, 06:12 AM

Viking,

I originally had a much longer reponse also dicussing types of pole shifts, about which there seems to be some confusion, but lost it when I was forced to log in again. Unfortunately, I do not have time to reproduce it. The following is the short version.

I knew about the Chandler wobble. It is MINISCULE. Consider what you have said about it yourself.

The video refers to a DAILY wobble (not a 7-year one). It illustrates this using a photograph that appears to show the rotation of the stars (including Polaris) about the north celestial pole during some part of the night. The creator of the video seems to make the assumption that the direction of Polaris and the north celestial pole should coincide (they don't). Then because they don't coincide, and because Polaris rotates about the north celestial pole (it is about 3/4 of a degree away) instead of maintaining a fixed position, the video creator then claims this is evidence that the Earth is wobbling (might I say very dramatically) on a DAILY basis (poppycock).

You refer to an article with the title "NASA Claims Polar Shift Due In 2012". This article discusses both magnetic reversals on the sun, and magnetic reversals on the Earth. The 11 and 22 year sunspot cycles are well known. The name of the article is misleading, especially given the nature of the other content on the site.

1) If you can trust the article at all, someone at NASA is saying a new SOLAR cycle has begun at a certain point in time (fair enough, some person at NASA likely made some such statement).
2) The EXPECTATION given previous SOLAR cycles has been/is? that the next solar maximum would be in 2012 or 2013.
3) The article also discusses magnetic reversals of the Earth. However, NASA is in no way, shape, or form predicting that a magnetic (or other type of) pole reversal will occur on Earth in 2012.
4) The article twists the fact that someone at NASA announced the beginning of the SOLAR cycle, and the likely true statement that the solar maximum will occur in 2012 or 2013 into "NASA Claims Polar Shift Due In 2012". Not only is this misleading, it is not even technically true since in common usage magnetic reversals are said to occur at the minimums and not the maximums.
4) Someone either not understanding or not taking the time to understand the article might think based on the title that there would be a pole reversal on EARTH in 2012.

Also, yes, earthquake activity increased dramatically over the last few years. I don't know why.

Wolfgang / wfranzen

01-12-2010, 06:12 AM	#18
wfranzen Avalon Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Bellevue, WA, USA Posts: 42	Re: Pole Shift? Due? Viking, I originally had a much longer reponse also dicussing types of pole shifts, about which there seems to be some confusion, but lost it when I was forced to log in again. Unfortunately, I do not have time to reproduce it. The following is the short version. I knew about the Chandler wobble. It is MINISCULE. Consider what you have said about it yourself. The video refers to a DAILY wobble (not a 7-year one). It illustrates this using a photograph that appears to show the rotation of the stars (including Polaris) about the north celestial pole during some part of the night. The creator of the video seems to make the assumption that the direction of Polaris and the north celestial pole should coincide (they don't). Then because they don't coincide, and because Polaris rotates about the north celestial pole (it is about 3/4 of a degree away) instead of maintaining a fixed position, the video creator then claims this is evidence that the Earth is wobbling (might I say very dramatically) on a DAILY basis (poppycock). You refer to an article with the title "NASA Claims Polar Shift Due In 2012". This article discusses both magnetic reversals on the sun, and magnetic reversals on the Earth. The 11 and 22 year sunspot cycles are well known. The name of the article is misleading, especially given the nature of the other content on the site. 1) If you can trust the article at all, someone at NASA is saying a new SOLAR cycle has begun at a certain point in time (fair enough, some person at NASA likely made some such statement). 2) The EXPECTATION given previous SOLAR cycles has been/is? that the next solar maximum would be in 2012 or 2013. 3) The article also discusses magnetic reversals of the Earth. However, NASA is in no way, shape, or form predicting that a magnetic (or other type of) pole reversal will occur on Earth in 2012. 4) The article twists the fact that someone at NASA announced the beginning of the SOLAR cycle, and the likely true statement that the solar maximum will occur in 2012 or 2013 into "NASA Claims Polar Shift Due In 2012". Not only is this misleading, it is not even technically true since in common usage magnetic reversals are said to occur at the minimums and not the maximums. 4) Someone either not understanding or not taking the time to understand the article might think based on the title that there would be a pole reversal on EARTH in 2012. Also, yes, earthquake activity increased dramatically over the last few years. I don't know why. Wolfgang / wfranzen