Where Troy Once Stood

[axj]

According to the C's, in the session of October 31 2001 that Nienna posted in the other thread

All the discussions around the restoration of perpendicularity are based on that session.

From little that I understood about Dzhanibekov effect (Wikipedia link; there's also a nice short oldish YT video on Ark's YT channel) and what Gaby said in relation to hypothetical axis flip with North pole moving to the South of Africa, it won't be that the whole Earth as a compact solid body would be flipping, but only outer planetary layers like mantle for example (analogy of rotten avocado was used by Gaby for the purpose of visualization).

Yes, that is called crustal displacement, which according to the C's also happened to some extent, in addition to the changes in the tilt of the rotational axis. A crustal shift does not restore the perpendicularity of the rotational axis.

In principle, the above does not necessarily imply that the axial tilt was different then than it is now, but only that the axis itself was different, i.e. that the geographic North pole was in (slightly) different location or position than it is now.

The geographic North and South poles can only change with crustal displacement, not with a change of the tilt of the rotational axis. The latter only causes a change in Earth's orientation towards the Sun.

 

[SasaM]

The geographic North and South poles can only change with crustal displacement, not with a change of the tilt of the rotational axis. The latter only causes a change in Earth's orientation towards the Sun.

Why would the geographic poles only change with crustal displacement and not also when rotational axis would shift?
Is it impossible for the axis to change for few degrees for example due to for instance a strong volcanic eruption or bolide impact to the planetary surface that would nudge or pull the whole globe in a particular direction and in such a way also change the positions of Earth's geographic poles?

On another note, in respect to axis being titled for cca 23 degrees, i.e. the precession, there's also nutation meaning that the axis tilt is not exactly constant over time even now.

Edit:

A crustal shift does not restore the perpendicularity of the rotational axis.

Why not?
In principle it could, don't see a reason why that would be excluded as a possibility.

 

[axj]

Why would the geographic poles only change with crustal displacement and not also when rotational axis would shift?

The geographic North and South poles would still be in the same locations on Earth, only Earth's orientation towards the Sun and the stars/constellations would change. The poles are where the rotational axis goes through.

An extreme example: If Earth tilted to the side on its axis like Uranus, we would have about half a year of darkness and half a year of light, even though the geographic North and South Poles would still be in the same locations where they are now.

 

[SasaM]

The geographic North and South poles would still be in the same locations on Earth, only Earth's orientation towards the Sun and the stars/constellations would change. The poles are where the rotational axis goes through.

An extreme example: If Earth tilted to the side on its axis like Uranus, we would have about half a year of darkness and half a year of light, even though the geographic North and South Poles would still be in the same locations where they are now.

Ok, I get that, but it's not exclusive, meaning that the axis can change its angle to the ecliptic AND its position at the same time, that is the locations of 'new' North and South geographic poles.

I don't see a reason why such hypothetical event would be excluded from the set of possibilities.

As for the extreme example of Earth tilting to its side like Uranos, why do you 'forbid' a possibility that in that case poles might also change their locations, like that North pole ends up in Siberia for example while the tilting happens? We might still have half a planet in day time, but Northern and Southern hemispheres would be slightly different than they are today.

 

[Gaby]

Ok, I get that, but it's not exclusive, meaning that the axis can change its angle to the ecliptic AND its position at the same time, that is where 'new' North and South geographic poles would be.

Well, you're sort of back to "extraordinary claims which require extraordinary facts." One way this could be possible is allowing for the lithosphere to move around. Or, allowing for at least the outer mantle and everything above it to move around. Like the scenario that Ethical Skeptic explains in his series. Otherwise, if the axis of rotation changes, North and South poles are still North and South poles.

 

[SasaM]

Well, you're sort of back to "extraordinary claims which require extraordinary facts." One way this could be possible is allowing for the lithosphere to move around. Or, allowing for at least the outer mantle and everything above it to move around. Like the scenario that Ethical Skeptic explains in his series. Otherwise, if the axis of rotation changes, North and South poles are still North and South poles.

Well, actually, I'm more in a realm of hypotheses and possibilities.

Sure, North and South poles would still be North and South poles if axis changed its tilt angle to the ecliptic, though not necessarily in the same position.
What I'm trying to convey is that, hypothetically, both crustal movement and 'pure' axial shift may in principle on their own each change both the axial tilt to the ecliptic and the actual axial position. Well, not sure about crustal movement though, but that change in rotation of a 'solid' body can change both, the axis position and precession angle, seems rather obvious to me. Especially when we talk about spheroids or more or less sphere-like bodies.

That they could do that in combination is rather evident and not really in dispute, but I don't see why the possibility that each, or at least change in rotational axis, can in principle cause both of the end results discussed here gets treated as an impossibility.

Would you enlighten me on that please?

 

[Joe]

Cailleaux claims that it was due to the foggy nature of the place and how the current arrived to Circe's island. Though, one wonders... Pole shift in the ancient past? Then there's this one:

In this time they said that the sun had moved four times from his accustomed place of rising, and where he now sets he had thence twice had his rising, and in the place from whence he now rises he had twice had his setting. -Herodotus, an Account of Egypt

We could ask about this, because it's my understanding that the only thing that could cause this effect is a reversal of the axial rotation. The forces required to do this would very likely wipe out all (or the vast majority of) life on earth. So I'd say if this claim is actually true, it happened at a major juncture in earth's history, and therefore not something that happened in the last 12k years.

 

[axj]

Ok, I get that, but it's not exclusive, meaning that the axis can change its angle to the ecliptic AND its position at the same time, that is the locations of 'new' North and South geographic poles.

Without crustal displacement, the geographic poles cannot change their location on Earth. That is exclusive. But in practice, both the axis tilt and some crustal displacement can happen at the same time, according to the C's (eg. during the Younger Dryas cataclysm).

We could ask about this, because it's my understanding that the only thing that could cause this effect is a reversal of the axial rotation. The forces required to do this would very likely wipe out all (or the vast majority of) life on earth.

Unless this extreme axial tilting happened slow enough, as the C's have indicated regarding the 20 degree tilt around 2600 BC. But fast enough not to wipe out everything with extreme climate changes if tropics end up in the arctic regions, etc. Still seems kind of unlikely that extreme tilts like that happened, but then again a 20 degree tilt less than 5000 years ago is also rather extreme.

 

[Gaby]

Would you enlighten me on that please?

Simply put, the axis of rotation is just that, a rotation around an axis:

You want to envision a scenario where the location of the poles change, albeit minimally, you have to factor in other changes, other than a simple change of the axis of rotation. For example, crustal slippage as axj explains above, or Pierre's article:

Of Flash Frozen Mammoths and Cosmic Catastrophes

For years I've been fascinated by what could be considered as one of the greatest mysteries of our planet: the demise of the woolly mammoths. Try to imagine the barely imaginable: millions of giant mammoths inexplicably flash-frozen overnight....

www.sott.net

See about true polar wander events and their mechanisms. See about deep Earth science and the forces involved.

Otherwise, with the example of a simple restoration of perpendicularity in the axis of rotation, we're basically talking of the Golden Age. Eternal summer, and the poles are still the same, the North Pole and the South Pole. Of course, we know these changes are catastrophic. Some mantle or crustal slippage would be expected, which is catastrophic. Which could then lead to a change in location of the poles.

 

[SasaM]

Without crustal displacement, the geographic poles cannot change their location on Earth. That is exclusive.

Why would it be exclusive?

Take an orange for example and spin it. While spinning, nudge it in arbitrary direction. That nudge can change both, the rotational axis position and precession angle. No need for any additional and separate crustal movement for former to happen.
Or am I seeing something the wrong way here?

 

[Navigator]

This revindicates Velikovsky, there are parts in Worlds in Collision where he talks about the legends about the reversal of the Sun's rising and setting. Here is what Grok found from the book:

The one from Herodotus, already quoted by Gaby, has a bit more of context:

Velikovsky highlighted Herodotus's report from Egyptian priests, who claimed four such reversals since Egypt's founding (over 11,000 years prior, per their reckoning). "The priests asserted that within historical ages and since Egypt became a kingdom, 'four times in this period (so they told me) the sun rose contrary to his wont; twice he rose where he now sets, and twice he set where he now rises.'" He cross-referenced this with Pomponius Mela's account of Egyptian annals: "The Egyptians pride themselves on being the most ancient people in the world. In their authentic annals... one may read that since they have been in existence, the course of the stars has changed direction four times, and that the sun has set twice in that part of the sky where it rises today."

Velikovsky interpreted these as literal, rejecting explanations like precession of equinoxes, and linked them to papyri like the Ipuwer and Harris, which describe the "land [turning] round [over] as does a potter's wheel" and "the south becomes north, and the Earth turns over."

From Hebrew Rabbinical sources:

For the pre-Deluge era, Velikovsky quoted the Talmud (Tractate Sanhedrin): "Seven days before the deluge, the Holy One changed the primeval order and the sun rose in the west and set in the east." He noted that "Tevel" (Hebrew for the pre-reversal world) implied a western sunrise, and later rabbis like Hai Gaon (939–1038 CE) referenced similar cosmic shifts.
During the Exodus, he tied reversals to Joshua's "long day," suggesting a collective global memory of the sun "standing still" or inverting.

Greek and other traditions:

Plato's Statesman described a divine "reversal" where "the sun... used to set in the quarter where [it] now rise, and used to rise where [it] now set," causing mass destruction. Velikovsky extended this to Sophocles and Euripides, who in myths like Atreus's feast depicted Zeus reversing the sun's course in wrath: "Zeus... changed the course of the sun, causing it to rise in the east and not in the west." Aztec lore, per Velikovsky, recalled a sunless period followed by an unexpected eastern rise after bets on its direction failed. He even noted Syrian Ugaritic texts of Anat "exchanging the two dawns and the positions of the stars."

On a "wondering" Sun, here is Plato's Timaeus:

In a Pythagorean-influenced passage, Velikovsky saw a depiction of Earth "overtaken by a tempest of winds" colliding with "alien fire" or floods, causing the globe to "engage in all motions, 'forwards and backwards, and again to right and to left, and upwards and downwards, wandering every way in all the six directions.'" He clarified: "In Plato's terminology, 'revolution of the same' is from east to west, and 'revolution of the other' is from west to east," with fractures leading to "irrationally" reversed or oblique paths.

Egyptian clues and hints on axis upheaval during catastrophes:

The Senmut tomb ceiling showed a "reversed orientation" of stars (Orion west of Sirius, against normal motion), which Velikovsky called a pre-catastrophe sky map: "Orion... appeared to be moving eastward, i.e., in the wrong direction." Plutarch's accounts of Typhon (a chaos deity) described the sun "not fixed to an unwandering and certain course," with "confused" stars and inverted seasons: "The winter is come as (instead of) summer, the months are reversed and the hours are disordered." Velikovsky linked this to Venus's "cometary" path disrupting Earth's stability.

Deeper in Aztec lore, as if they didn't have memory of State 1, the Sun rising from the East, implying lost memory, maybe due to the catastrophe surrounding the reversal.

It describes the transition between the Fourth Sun (Nahui Atl, the "Sun of Water," destroyed by flood) and the Fifth Sun (Nahui Ollin, the "Sun of Movement," our current era). This era begins with an apocalyptic darkness lasting decades, evoking terror and survival struggles, before the sun's hesitant return.

"The Aztecs related: 'There had been no sun in existence for many years... [The Chiefs] began to peer through the gloom in all directions for the expected sight, and to make bets as to what part of heaven [the sun] should first appear... but when the sun rose, they were all proved wrong, for not one of them had fixed upon the east.'"

A similar situation with the Maya, but some of those guys guessed it right, as if they kept better records or were better at astronomy:

"Similarly the Mayan legend tells that 'it was not known from where the new sun would appear.' 'They looked in all directions, but they were unable to say where the sun would rise. Some thought it might take place in the north and their glances were turned in that direction. Others thought it would be in the south. Actually, their guess included all directions because dawn shone all around. Some, however, fixed their attention on the orient, and maintained that the sun would come from there. It was their opinion that proved to be correct.'"

Edit:

The complete reversal of the Sun rising and setting, from West to East and back to East to West after finishing State 2 makes sense if we look at the map:

 

[Gaby]

Take an orange for example and spin it. While spinning, nudge it in arbitrary direction. That nudge can change both, the rotational axis position and precession angle. No need for any additional and separate crustal movement for former to happen.

Yes, but in your begging scenario before, you were changing the location of the poles. Put a black dot in your orange to mark North on the top. Where South should be, mark it with blue. The axis traverses your black and blue dot. Now, spin your orange in your new chosen direction or directions. It's a sphere, it rotates. And remember, the axis of rotation traverses the black and blue dots. Like having a stick entering the black mark and exiting the blue mark. The black dot and blue dot would still be on the same place you painted them, regardless of your new chosen direction of rotation or rotations. Surely, the day will look all weird, and the seasons too, depending on how you're spinning it.

Point being, it's the axis of rotation. Even if you place the blue dot on the North or the West... the dots didn't change their locations of where you painted them. You just changed the direction it spins. To change the dots, you have to throw a few rocks to the orange. Then the dot might change a few centimeters. Your orange will get deformed and crashed too.

I know it's simple. But somewhere in the middle, you were adding other scenarios that simply require other dynamics to be factored in.

 

[SasaM]

An extreme example: If Earth tilted to the side on its axis like Uranus, we would have about half a year of darkness and half a year of light, even though the geographic North and South Poles would still be in the same locations where they are now.

How exactly would half a year be day and other half night? Would such a rolling planet switch its sides in an instant while orbiting the star?

Uranus does not do such a thing, only its poles are roughly half the orbit on the day side and the other half on the night side, while its equator basically sees the Sun every day while planet revolves around it. When the poles are directly facing the star, whole of equator is in light, while on other days there is normal exchange of day and night, though a bit strange from our usual perspective.

 

[SasaM]

Yes, but in your begging scenario before, you were changing the location of the poles. Put a black dot in your orange to mark North on the top. Where South should be, mark it with blue. The axis traverses your black and blue dot. Now, spin your orange in your new chosen direction or directions. It's a sphere, it rotates. And remember, the axis of rotation traverses the black and blue dots. Like having a stick entering the black mark and exiting the blue mark. The black dot and blue dot would still be on the same place you painted them, regardless of your new chosen direction of rotation or rotations. Surely, the day will look all weird, and the seasons too, depending on how you're spinning it.

Point being, it's the axis of rotation. Even if you place the blue dot on the North or the West... the dots didn't change their locations of where you painted them. You just changed the direction it spins. To change the dots, you have to throw a few rocks to the orange. Then the dot might change a few centimeters. Your orange will get deformed and crashed too.

I know it's simple. But somewhere in the middle, you were adding other scenarios that simply require other dynamics to be factored in.

Oh boy.
Check please the video about Dzhanibekov effect on Ark's YT channel linked to in my post on previous page of the thread. That's the extreme example.

Video starts with blue ball being North pole and green ball South pole. After some time, due to instability (which can be caused from outside like that 'nudge' for example, or inherent to the system like a tennis racket) the rotational axis starts to change, and ends up with green ball now being North pole, while blue ball becoming South pole. The rotational axis flipped, and during the flipping process neither of the balls remained being the pole they were before the flip started. And that video is about a solid body, clearly showing that no crustal movement is needed for rotational axis to change its position and orientation in space.

IOW, rotational axis of a solid body can change its orientation in space viewed from outside, like precession angle, and at the same time its 'position' within the system, changing the locations of the poles on the body itself, like with that balls in the video that were flipping every now and then from being North pole to South pole and back again.

In your example, the black and blue dots on the orange would be moving when the flipping process started and exchaged their positions when the flip would be over. And would do that again when next flip begins.
End result: poles move around (the surface of) the body (orange), describing or drawing a curve on it, while and when the (net or effective) rotational axis changes its orientation and position.

Hope this now made things a bit clearer.
Thanks go to Ark for making that Mathematica simulation video.

Edit:
On my previous posts here, rotational axis changing position meant that the poles changed their location 'on the body'.

 

[axj]

When the poles are directly facing the star, whole of equator is in light, while on other days there is normal exchange of day and night, though a bit strange from our usual perspective.

Uranus is indeed more complex. It seems that for most of the planet (not on the equator), about a quarter of the orbital year is in light (summer), a quarter in darkness (winter) and two quarters of the year (spring and fall) there are day and night cycles when the equator is facing the Sun.

Though the exact length of each season probably varies by how close to the poles or the equator a location is.