Re: OK Nancy, Where Is It?

Bill Nelson (billn@peak.org) wrote:
> 
> The Small Kahuna <person@company.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> No one claims that the Earth has not experienced fairly sudden
> >> MAGNETIC pole shifts. But those do not cause any physical land
> >> movement. 
> >>
> > OK, I'll bite on this one.  Where is the data that shows conclusively
> > that it is the magnetic pole (field) that shifts and not either the
> > crust or the Earth's axis? 
> > (Note, I'm looking for data, not "Gee whiz, the amount of angular
> > momentum would simply be tremendous, so its not *logical* that it would
> > be anything *but* the magnetic field because the field itself is
> > weightless".  Actual data that demonstrates the point.)
> 
> Easy. We can measure the magnetic variation, just about on a daily
> basis. We also have older maps that show where the magnetic north pole
> was a few decades ago - and it isn't where it is now. This shows that
> the magnetic poles move.

Agreed.  This data proves (i.e. strongly substantiates) that the
magnetic poles move within small bounds.  Other data (and historical
records of astronomical sightings) proves that the rotational axis of
(at least) the crust has not moved except in the slow precession that is
known and has been demonstrated, and this has not happened within the
past few thousand years.

> The lava records show that there have many complete reversals of the
> magnetic field - although none in recorded history (at least of which
> I am aware).  This is all data that is fairly easily accessed.

Lava records show that there is a difference between the *current* frame
of reference and the magnetic field at the time the lava solidified (in
the *past*).  You are comparing two valid data points but at two vastly
different times.  The validity of this is based on an assumption that
the axis of rotation has remained constant.  My question is not "where
is there evidence that there is (was) a differential shift between the
two axes" my question is "where is the calibration of the (presumed)
constant axis of rotation".

> There has not been any shift of the Earth's axis in recorded history,
> and we are talking about thousands of years time. The same is true for
> crustal shifts.

This point is (I believe) arguable, but even if I give it to you, this
does not prove anything except that there is no anecdotal evidence for
axis migration over a very recent time period representing an
infinitesimal percentage of the Earth's history.  Are you suggesting
that Science hang its hat on the *lack* of recording?  What about the
statement in the Bible about the Sun standing still and Giants of renown
in the land who were the "suns of god" commingling with the "daughters
of men"?  What does Science say about either of those two "facts"?  If
you ask most scientists, Biblical evidence is not evidence even though
it purports to be accurate history.  You cannot have it both ways where
you pick and choose those "historical records", legends, stories and
other "records" which substantiate the assumptions you have already made
based on whether or not they support the conclusion.  The historical
data (or lack thereof) may have been in the library at Alexandria (which
burned) or may have been in the Mayan Codexes (which were systematically
destroyed by the invading priests) or may be yet to be discovered. 
Since so few records of *any* type exist, it is hard to even define
"recorded history".

There are lots of "historical records" and they can be used to "prove"
most anything.  There are stories and legends which are echoes of
something, but what that something is, is no longer clear as the
original facts are lost in the mists of time.  If one were to assume
that the crust did in fact move, it is not too much of a stretch to
imagine such an event making the maintenance of historical records
somewhat difficult, so you have a self-erasing event.

Besides, I'm sure the same basic popularity rules were in place back
then as today.  Which do you think is likely to be found in 10,000
years, a Tom Clancy novel or a college text on quantum mechanics? 
(Given that there are 1,000 copies of Tom Clancy for every QM text.)  As
a future archeologist, what should you conclude about "recorded history"
based on finding an ancient copy of "The Hunt for Red October"?

The Small Kahuna