Click for norwegian vers.
Click for norwegian vers.NEW:
I have tried to make a animation of my theory to illustrate the drift in my theory.
"Something" press upp the landmass I have clustered around the world at a belt near Equator. It looks to me it was this movement who breake up this landmass and make them start driftifting.
FOREWORD:
In trying to reach a reasonable, rational and sensible explanation about a series of happenings that I had chosen to question, I wound up with a completely new model, that stands in contrast with the theory commonly reached and used by researchers around the world as a basis for their secessions. As opposed to these researchers who today believe in a model that stretches itself from Pole to Pole, I have now gathered the continents around the world along the Equator.
Many thousands of hours have been used in research on this subject - and in the character as an amateur researcher I might have the unique possibility to think NEW and FREE without having to go by others recitations and accepted resolutions.
I have therefore been able to pick up some loose threads and I am in the process of winding them up.
I have also had the advantage that I can use more time on individual things than the professional researchers, even though my level of knowledge might be less compared to those who work on this as a profession. This is then the result of the model I have worked out.
During the recent years there have been some discussions around the correctness of the model used today. This model has been set by the German Geophysicist Alfred Wegener in 1915, and was accepted in 1960.Concrete proof against his theories has come forth lately, but unfortunately there is little, it seems, that the geologists are willing to do to update their models even though quite a few newer discoveries have come that invalidates the basis they build upon.
One of the strongest proofs that has been laid out is the re-analysing of the magnetic felt preserved in species of rocks. The surveys are done by acknowledged Geophysics. Results bear proof that the earth must have had as many as eight poles at the same time, or else the continents must have been gathered around Equator as shown in my model. A model where the continents stretches from Pole to Pole can in no way be right if we take these measures for what they are. To show what I refer to, I point to an article from "New Scientist".
lhttp://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15921483.500-magnetic-shift.html
“Magnetic shift
By Jeff Hecht
| traces of the earth's magnetic field frozen in rocks are yielding surprises about the planet's past. A re-analysis of old measurements of these fields has forced geologists to conclude that either the migrating continents were clustered closer to the equator than previously thought, or that the Earth's magnetic field was not the simple pair of poles it is today. Geologists track the history of continental motion by measuring the magnetism of ancient rocks. As some rocks form, they retain an imprint of the Earth's magnetic field. The field direction and the age of the rock together show the latitude of the continent at the time the rock formed, provided that the shape of the terrestrial magnetic field at the time can be worked out. Today, the Earth's magnetic field lines, which emanate from the poles and surround the planet, have a simple and predictable distribution. Geologists have proved that for at least five million years the field has been a dipole, like a bar magnet with poles aligned on the planet's axis. And they calculate ancient latitudes assuming the field has always been a dipole, says Dennis Kent of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York. But now Kent and Mark Smethurst of the Geological Survey of Norway in Trondheim have analysed palaeomagnetic data from rocks up to 3·5 billion years old. Instead of the magnetic distribution expected from a dipole, they found an excess of rocks from older eras with low-angle fields, as if they had formed at lower latitudes than those predicted by standard models that assume a random distribution of the early continents (Earth and Planetary Science Letters, vol 160, p 391). "The surprising result is that in the Palaeozoic and Precambrian, the distributions differ markedly," Kent says. One possible explanation is that the Earth's magnetic field has not always been a dipole. Kent calculates that if the ancient Earth contained elements of between four and eight poles, its magnetic field lines would have met the migrating continents at lower angles than the lines of the modern dipole field. That would account for the distribution he and Smethurst observed, he says. Such an arrangement might have been possible before the solid part of the core--which started growing as late as a billion years ago--reached its present size. The other possible explanation for the findings, Kent says, is that the continents were once clustered near the equator. Such clustering could be the result of centrifugal force tilting heavy parts of the outer layers of the Earth away from the poles (" Twist of fate ", New Scientist, 2 August 1997, p 15). Gary Glatzmaier of the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico says his unpublished simulations of the Earth's magnetic field may be able to discover which explanation is right. According to his models, multiple poles are unlikely, he says. "When the inner core was smaller, our simulations suggest the dipole was even stronger than today." If correct, Glatzmaier's results would mean that geologists have to redraw their maps of the ancient continents.” From New Scientist, 22 August 1998 |
Proof should, as the article shows, make the geologists want to re-evaluate the foundations they build their authority upon. Particularly because this earlier model is being taught in Universities and Schools. In my estimation, we have a responsibility that we can not neglect when it comes to correct research theories that obviously do not hold good.
Even though this is only a theory, we must be willing to re-evaluate old theories when new scientific elements come to light that prove that the former theory no longer holds good.
Unfortunately, the tendency is that man will reject new thinking, when after a while one has built his whole research upon this one special model. In hopes that my private theory might result in an intelligent discussion, I hereby would like to present my work.
Each individual reader is encouraged and invited to judge the results for themselves.
Good luck!!
Here is a new article about Earth's ancient magnetism which was published recently:Ancient Earth's Magnetic Field Was Structured Like Today's Two-pole Model
Next page: From pole to pole?
