Was This Atlantis?|
Examination of the possible location and the reason of its disappearance.
How could we explain
a displacement of the poles?
poles have, with a certain probability as we saw earlier, been moved
at a significant distance. Do the poles have moved on their own?
Have they been displaced by an external force? It would be quite
legitimate to ask how such a move could take place. The poles
however, don't represent anything magical, neither geographical,
because they are nothing else than the axis around which the Earth
makes its daily rotation. Then the fact that the poles are covered
with a thick layer of ice is the result of the low amount of
sunlight they receive, ie six months per year little and no sunshine
at all the other six months. We can therefore, by taking into
account that the displacement of the poles represents nothing more
than a move of the Earth's rotation axis, ask ourselves: how do we
change the axis of rotation of the Earth? Has there been an
imbalance? Do we need force and if so, how much? Where should we
apply this force and how should it be applied?
If the poles were moved, how have they been and how can we explain their
We have already seen that the north and south poles are representing nothing
but the axis around which the Earth makes its daily rotation. Then
to change the location of the poles and thereby the axis of rotation,
it will be sufficient to change the parameters of rotation of the
Earth. However, the Earth is a mass making a rotative movement and
does, like any mass in movement, oppose to any change of this motion.
The change of the rotation, like any modification of a mass movement
in general, will require an amount of energy to compensate for the
action-reaction pair. The change will be proportional to the amount
of energy applied and the amount of energy required will be
proportional to the amplitude of change. The application of such a
force would be the gravity forces of the Sun and Moon. These two
forces have as result that the angle of the rotation axis and with
him the poles move slowly over a period of about twenty-six-thousand
years, or one degree every seventy-two years.
Was the mass of the ice cap high enough to have had an influence on the Earth's rotation?
Good question isn't it? But consider the possibility of rapid change.
Would the mass of the ice cap have been high enough to have had this
result? There are indeed some scientists and non-scientists who
claim that this could have been the case. By comparing the mass of
the ice with the mass of the Earth, however, we can see that the mass
of the ice cap, albeit impressive, makes up only one
hundred-thousandth of the total mass. With such a large difference
we can admit that if there was a movement, it would have been a slow
one, very slow even. This movement would be so slow, that it's
imperceptible and ice would have ample time to melt on one side and
freeze on the other. This hypothesis is thus unlikely and may be
excluded from being responsible for a disaster such as the
disappearance of Atlantis.
Did the Earth always rotate at the same speed around its axis, has he maybe been accelerated or slowed down?
What is this? A tricky question? Like everyone else, we, the ordinary
people and even some scientists, can hardly imagine that the today's
situation has not always been the same. The reason for this issue
lies in the fact that any change in parameter of rotation of the
Earth leads to an indirect modification of the rotation speed with
which the Earth rotates daily on its axis, and thereby the length of
the day. It's therefore legitimate to ask whether a pole shift had
no side-effect like changing the length of the day. Can we determine
whether a change has occurred and if so, what was that change? What
remains to determined is whether the day has become longer or,
Did the magnetic and geographic poles were the same in the past?
It's indeed Mr Otto H Muck who had argued in his theory that the
geographic and magnetic poles should have been at the same place.
It's on these facts that he had built his theory. We know, on the
other hand, that no link exists between the two and that the magnetic
poles are constantly moving. It's indeed possible that the
geographic and magnetic poles were in the same place in the past, but
this is unlikely. Especially the angle and distance of travel does
not stick well with what's expected.
Could the poles would have traveled alone?
We can safely classify this issue in an area ranging from impossible to
improbable. As we have seen, the Earth is a large mass in rotation
on itself and any change in its rotation parameters requires some
force. This force can be for example the gravitational forces of the
Sun and the Moon, or any other force applied from outside. But what
is missing for a change in the parameter of the rotation of the Earth
from within itself, is just the fulcrum for the lever so dear to our
So we know two situations, one in which the Earth makes its daily rotation
about an axis tilted by 23.45° and the other where it rotates
around an axis tilted by 6° to 10°. These two axes
correspond to a North Pole in two different places. The first place,
called 'A', is there where the North Pole is today. The second
place, called 'B', is the place of Greenland, where the North Pole
could have been 12'000 years ago. The current situation is such that
the point 'A' is stationary and that the 'B' describes a circle
around the point 'A' with a speed of 135 meters per second. The
situation of 12'000 years ago was the opposite, however, there it was
point 'B' which was stationary and it was point 'A' which described a
circle around the point 'B'. By comparing the Earth, for example,
with a billiard ball, this small change in rotation could be called
an effect. Such technology is widely used in sport, apart from pool
players, football players and tennis do too. By seeing a pool player
when he wants to give an effect to a billiard ball, he does not hit
it in the middle with the pool cue, but at a location offset from the
center. Now we can admit that the force that had changed the Earth's
rotation, would have done the same. The Earth should have been
struck so that our 'B' was accelerated relative to point 'A' by 135
meters per second. Earth had certainly been hit, as our billiard
ball with “effect”, with a certain angle and offset from
its center. It requires that the total of the angle of impact plus
the difference with the meridian on which the pole was once, makes up
a 90° angle with this meridian. We can, considering that the
impact, as our pool player, had taken place to a third of the
distance in relation to the center, determine which sites to search
for traces of asteroid impact. What remains us now is the opposite
case, the situation where the 'A' was slowed down relative to point
'B', but this does not change much, except that the point of impact
should be found at the other side of the Earth. We can also see that
the result of such impact gives us, apart from a different angle, a
different length of the day. In the case of an acceleration, the
Earth will turn faster after, with shorter days as a consequence and
in case of a slow down, the Earth would turn more slowly, with longer
days as a result of impact.