How could we explain
a displacement of the poles?

he 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 movement?

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, contrary, shorter.

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 Archimède.

Conclusion:

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.