Massive sun ejection, earthquakes and volcanic activity. NOW

Mon Jan 18, 2010 1:52 am » by **Lowsix**

ruquick wrote:LOL....you did'nt let me down.
BUT...there is also strong evidence which suggests the earths land masses have shifted dramatically in the past. You only need to study the global map to realize this.

Also,Low
Why is it the area that froze suddenly is still frozen?
Why did the inversion not revert back?
What caused the inversion (as extreme as that) in the first place?

Look bastard, get with the game here...if you counter me with completely reasonable, and entirely legitimate and troublesome questions..it will make it that much harder for me to mock and deride you.

So far, none of my readings of the consensus explanations (for inversion) i have researched have accounted for those problems you listed with the inversion theory.

Props.

However, neither have i heard what i would consider a reasonable timetable explanation for the land mass shift/Mastodon Greens issue either.

The answers lie somewhere in the middle.

peace bro.

..

Mon Jan 18, 2010 2:09 am » by **Ruquick**

LowSix wrote:
ruquick wrote:LOL....you did'nt let me down.
BUT...there is also strong evidence which suggests the earths land masses have shifted dramatically in the past. You only need to study the global map to realize this.

Also,Low
Why is it the area that froze suddenly is still frozen?
Why did the inversion not revert back?
What caused the inversion (as extreme as that) in the first place?

Look bastard, get with the game here...if you counter me with completely reasonable, and entirely legitimate and troublesome questions..it will make it that much harder for me to mock and deride you.

So far, none of my readings of the consensus explanations (for inversion) i have researched have accounted for those problems you listed with the inversion theory.

Props.

However, neither have i heard what i would consider a reasonable timetable explanation for the land mass shift/Mastodon Greens issue either.

The answers lie somewhere in the middle.

peace bro.

..

listen,dickhead, i did counter you with legitimate questions which you completely avoided.
You seem to have an insatiable need to belittle people who dont bow down to your explanations, or lack thereof.
I'm not here to get irate with ANYONE but i'm not gonna eat shit either.
Now on the other hand, if you were just being sarcastic, which I did not sense entirely, I wont consider it shit shoved in my face

peace :wink:

Mon Jan 18, 2010 2:12 am » by **Lowsix**

LowSix wrote:
ruquick wrote:LOL....you did'nt let me down.
BUT...there is also strong evidence which suggests the earths land masses have shifted dramatically in the past. You only need to study the global map to realize this.

Also,Low
Why is it the area that froze suddenly is still frozen?
Why did the inversion not revert back?
What caused the inversion (as extreme as that) in the first place?

Look bastard, get with the game here...if you counter me with completely reasonable, and entirely legitimate and troublesome questions..it will make it that much harder for me to mock and deride you.

So far, none of my readings of the consensus explanations (for inversion) i have researched have accounted for those problems you listed with the inversion theory.

Props.

However, neither have i heard what i would consider a reasonable timetable explanation for the land mass shift/Mastodon Greens issue either.

The answers lie somewhere in the middle.

peace bro.

..

You are mad that i granted that all of your counterpoints were excellent???

wtf.

Youre a weird fucker.

Read the shit a few more times.
I highlighted the important stuff in red.

Mon Jan 18, 2010 2:18 am » by **Ruquick**

You are mad that i granted that all of your counterpoints were excellent???

wtf.

Youre a weird fucker.

Read the shit a few more times.
I highlighted the important stuff in red.[/quote]
Well....you did start out with "Look bastard"
And like i said "if you were just being sarcastic.........."
And ...umm....thanks. :cheers:

Mon Jan 18, 2010 2:18 am » by **Lowsix**

lol

Mon Jan 18, 2010 4:50 am » by **Gary19702**

boondox681 wrote:gary19702-thanx for the civility.i appreciate your honesty and your information/input.matt

No worries :flop:

I try to keep things calm at the very least!

Wed Jan 20, 2010 7:03 pm » by **sockpuppet**

aladin wrote:
I still do not know any force that a rotating earth could just turn back time in their rotation or the axis position.

If the Earth's axis should change - that is a true pole shift takes place - then it would realize that GPS users at once - they were misled everyone! - Or the orbits of the satellites would have to change uniformly with the relocation of the Earth's axis. That's what I infer from a general ...

In addition, the oceans would still follow the old slow rotation, and thus it would come to devastating coastal flooding.

If the profile is then entered, then one can speak of a Polschift. Anything else is ridiculous.

Mind you: you have this theory to separate the rotation axes shift precisely the innocuous shift of magnetic poles.
Perhaps I had not highlighted clearly enough or the Google translator has again made botch ...

You are clear, there is nothing wrong with Google translator. It's just that many people don't understand the difference between a magnetic pole shift which changes compass orientation based on the magnetism of the magma under the earth's surface, and a POLE SHIFT, where the entire globe either changes its rotation (clockwise/counter-clockwise) or flips upside down.

It's made worse by people who never learned about Pangaea in elementary science/geography, and they think suddenly that every continent is going to move around the globe because of a "pole shift" (but they don't know which type). Even if all of the continents moved (which is a superficial, shallow change), if the earth is rotating relative to the magnetic poles in the same way as before the change, there still isn't a pole shift!

Wed Jan 20, 2010 7:47 pm » by **Kerrblur2**

still zero sunspots yet.