The Flood- one explanation

Rei, I think you might be ignoring the gyroscopic force caused by the earth's spin that would make it so resistant to tilting that only a mass of ridiculously immense proportion could alter it by gravity alone. Even then, gravity's pull would be distributed across the whole planet more or less equally instead of only on one particular half of it.I think that if a mass of the required size ever passed through the vicinity of our planet with enough proximity to tilt its axis in any meaningful amount it would also have obviously observable effects on the rest of the planets in our system. Hell, I don't know what the calculations might reveal, but I wouldn't be surprised if it required an object with greater mass than the cumulative mass of our entire solar system -- sun included.

Q: "Are you serious????"
A: "No, are you????"Q: "This was a Velikovsky idea wasn't it?"
A: "Velikovsky who?"[This message has been edited by Abshalom, 12-16-2003]

quote:

---

Rei, I think you might be ignoring the gyroscopic force caused by the earth's spin that would make it so resistant to tilting that only a mass of ridiculously immense proportion could alter it by gravity alone. Even then, gravity's pull would be distributed across the whole planet more or less equally instead of only on one particular half of it.

---

Hey, hey, wait a minute now, I'm not trying to defend this ludicrous flood notion! If you'll look at my initial post on the subject, I tore it apart. I was just defending the concept that a close flyby *can* alter a planet's rotation. I'm not saying that it's realistic here.

quote:

---

I think that if a mass of the required size ever passed through the vicinity of our planet with enough proximity to tilt its axis in any meaningful amount it would also have obviously observable effects on the rest of the planets in our system.

---

As I stated - that, and a *lot* more.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Yeah, I guess I knew that too... I was just sort of stuck in argumentative mode...

How? What are you an indian?Mr. Jack:
Keep your racism to yourself please, John Paul.John Paul:
Time to get a sense of humor Mr Jack. I am part Mic-Mac. Go figure...

Dear John Paul;Hopefully by now you can see why your flood theory will not work, as the others here have shown it is physically impossible to impart the energy necessary in a short period of time to change the earth's axis of rotation without killing all life on the planet. There was a flood, here is a link to the book I have written on how it happened.https://www1.xlibris.com/bookstore/bookdisplay.asp?bookid...

Lake Titicaca, been there, done that. A salt water lake with no source of salt. Perhaps the lake is the remnants of what was once part of the Pacific?OK I misrepresented the scenario- It should be the sudden change in the axis rotation of the earth's crust. We all know the earth's crust & core are not rigidly joined- also we know the magnetic pole is not the same as the geographical pole. The core could shift and the crust lags behind that shift. That is the basic premise. What caused the shift? Well we do see other planets with "weird" rotations (Uranus & Venus)- some have mentioned the mass of the object ignoring the magnetic influences and what those could do.Where do I get these ideas? Dr. Victor Pearce, Phillip Scott & George Dodwell.

Thank you William Scott. If I buy your book will you be free to answer some questions I may have?[This message has been edited by John Paul, 12-16-2003]

Salt in Lake Titicaca is carried in trace amounts by runoff. It is normal for large lakes with no outlets to have some salt in them, as well as many other dissolved minerals. You are aware of a place called the Dead Sea, correct? How about the Salt Lake in Utah?

quote:

---

Lake Titicaca, been there, done that. A salt water lake with no source of salt. Perhaps the lake is the remnants of what was once part of the Pacific?

---

Lake Titicaca has a salt content of 0.1%, and is designated a freshwater lake. It's about what would be expected from how long it would have taken for the Nasca and Andes plates to push the area up. In fact, it's patently obvious where all the salt went: there's one river that flows out of the lake (the Desaguadero). It takes the water far to the southeast, where you find huge salt flats (which once were also part of the lake itself, in ancient times). Huge salt flats which, might I add, you need to find a way to factor into your flood model (i.e., you need enough time for that much water to evaporate).By the way, it manages such a low salt content even though the lake is steadily drying up.

quote:

---

The core could shift and the crust lags behind that shift. That is the basic premise.

---

What on Earth? First off, I assume you mean "mantle" (not the core), and secondly, how do you propose *that* happen?

quote:

---

What caused the shift? Well we do see other planets with "weird" rotations (Uranus & Venus)- some have mentioned the mass of the object ignoring the magnetic influences and what those could do.

---

Those planets are sterile. You have yet to address the issues of the destruction of all life on Earth.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

J.P., I would be interested in the Micmac traditional flood myth if you are familiar with it. Many of the Artic Native Americans point to fossils, sea shells, and whale bones "deposited" at high altitudes as proof of their flood myths. Sound familiar?Ooops, I forgot this: Flood Stories from Around the World
Scroll down to "North America"[This message has been edited by Abshalom, 12-16-2003]

I am not familiar with any Micmac traditions. I have only recently confirmed my ancestry. My father, like his before him, tried to hide our ancestry due to the prejudice that abounded in their day. However it was evident by looking at my father's father that he was different from caucasions (sp?). Now when I look at pictures it is very clear to me.Sorry I couldn't help...

Ok William Scott Anderson,Give us a short synopsis of your (undoubtedly cranky) flood theory.

"Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood", 460 messages, and "Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood II", 185 messages, contain the discussions of Mr. Scott's ideas.Don't jump on the early discussions too hard - I think the ideas evolved considerably over the course of the topics.Adminnemooseus

Yes, of course it is. It's a body of old sea-water trapped by massive geologic uplift some millions of years ago. The vast amount of sea-life fossils in the area would seem to bear this out.Duh. Christ, haven't you heard of plate tectonics?The point, of course, is that while the lake may be so old that it was once part of the ocean, the city is not. The city is a harbor city because it was the harbor of a lake. The lake significantly predates the city.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 12-16-2003]