Now I know that Alfred Wegener`s theory is wrong!

I have solved the problems around Alfred Wegener`s theory who have been discussed since 1911.22 August 1998, Jeff Hecht wrote an article in New Scientist who proves that AlfredWegeners Theory is wrong. Here is this article:

quote:

---

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 35 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!!Take a look at my home page where I have studied the issue for over 20 years.You find my work here: This website is frozen.Helge Aspevik Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added quote box.

We know very little about this ice in the Sahara. What we know with certainty is that the ice disappeared for about 13,000 years ago.I wrote 9.9 billion years but this was a misprint. Thank you for making me aware of this. The error is corrected.Scientists can not explain the actual findings traces of tropical forest around the world without tipping on Earth. With my model you don`t need to tipp the planet and you can explain why the scientist have found petroloium in Antarctis. I choose to relate myself to the fact that the earth is one of the most stable planets we know of because the moon stabilize the planet.(Snip...)
"You seem to neglect ages of the rocks almost entirely, particularly of the ocean basins. I suggest you take a closer look at that data along with the paleomagnetic data."This is because the sea floor has been replaced several times as a result of seafloor spread. This is the first geologists forget even those are very concerned with seafloor spreading

I don`t need to dig up all my papers to prove it, and I can`t do that right now either, becase all my papers isn`s here in my house. :-)If you take a closer look at Gonwanaland who is the best evidence for Wegener`s theory, you can see the ONLY thing I have done, that is to move Gonwanaland away from Euro-Asia to explain those heavy
mountain ranges there. The geoligist today have no explanation for this mountains over Euro-Asia today! No explanation at all.To get North-America close to Europa, I only had to move Gonwanaland so far that all landmass on earth form a belt along Equator before N. America and Europa fits togheter as Wegener told us.That is the only thing I have done to get an explanation for the enormous mountain ranges we talk about. The result of this total necessary movement:Pangea did NOT stretch from pol to pole on one side of the Earth, but was a belt along Equator. That explain tropical forest there where we find ice today as Svalbard and Antartica and so on.I repeat: My theory is only a litle movement at Gonwanaland and that`s all.Edited by Aspevik, : No reason given.

Here is something I just find on the net:Late Ordovician glacial sediments in the SaharaNeil McDougall, Repsol-YPF (Spain)
Israel Polonio, Repsol-YPF (Spain)An Upper Ordovician glacial event is widely recognised across northwestern Gondwana. Some of the best exposures occur across SW Libya and SE Algeria in the Qarqaf Arch, Tassili N'Ajjers and Tassili Ahnet. Many of these outcrops were first studied some 30 to 40 years ago. However, since this early work the Upper Ordovician of the Saharan Platform has become a major target for hydrocarbon exploration in the associated Murzuq (SW Libya), Illizi and Ahnet (Algeria) Basins. Despite this, geological understanding of these complex reservoirs has until recently been driven from a subsurface perspective. The purpose here is to suggest a sedimentary and stratigraphic model for the Late Ordovician succession on the basis of outcrop studies and a comparison with well-documented Pleistocene successions across Northern Europe and the North Sea.Despite the geographical extent of the Platform, fieldwork in the various outcrops has confirmed the existence, of a generally similar succession across the area recording repeated glacial advances and retreats. The package comprises four vertically stacked architectural sequences:Sequence UO1: Highly argillaceous sandstones and mudstones of turbidite, debris flow and possible rain-out diamictite origin interpreted as glaciomarine deposits
Sequence UO2: coarse to fine grain sandstones interpreted as the deposits of a range of probable periglacial environments including sheetfloods, braided fluvial and subtidal estuarine bars
Sequence UO3: comprising slumped and dewatered silty sandstones progressively overlain by fine grained channeled and rippled sandstones the whole interpreted as a progradational delta front-moutbar package associated with massive sediment release during a post-glacial sea level rise
Sequence UO4: comprising coarse grained, often pebbly sandstones characterised by large-scale cross-bedding and climbing megaripples interpreted as the deposits of powerful subglacial or proglacial meltout events such as jokhulhaupsEach of these packages is associated with major erosion surfaces defining a complex series of nested palaeovalley features, resulting in an often complex pattern of facies distribution. These can be observed at a variety of scales, from a few hundred metres to several kilometres or more, both in outcrop and in numerous seismic lines. Examples of these features and the complex sedimentary infill are illustrated in the poster.
Overall, the Late Ordovician is often truncated by burrowed transgressive sands and graptolitic Silurian shales, which together represent a diachronous post-glacial flooding event over the entire Sahara platform.Interpretation of these complex successions is compared to the Quaternary glacial deposits of the southern Laurentide and Scandinavian ice sheets, specifically examples of tunnel valleys described from North Germany, Denmark and the North Sea. These features were incised by subglacial meltwater flows and later infilled by proglacial to postglacial sediments..link: Servio Geolgico do Brasil

There is a lot of storys around on net who tells about this subject, but this is not my point. As I told over here I have just moved Gondwanaland away from Euro-Asia because we have to do that to explain the massive mountains from the Alps to Kina. To do that it is required to put a lot of seafloorplates under the landplates to create those mountains.The Geologist have on their maps Africa close to Euro-Asia all the time.So the question is, how fare away do we have to take Afrika from Euro-Asia to get all those mountains from the Alps to China?Try to cut out the continents from a map, then you will see what I am talking about. Move Gonwanaland away from Euro-Asia, and you will see the problem!Edited by Aspevik, : No reason given.

I don`t need to go longer back in time because instead of Pangaea the continents formed a
belt around the equator, spun out as the earth cooled,
as a centrifuge would. The geologist don`t belive at this centrifugal force but in centripital force, but the physicists belive on centrifugal force and I think their words are more credible.

Edge:
There is no evidence for this. The paleomag data indicate otherwise.Are you sure? :-)
If you read the article from New Scientist on my page: http://www.aspevik.net you would see that is proved the paleomag data is proven that the continents were once clustered near the equator, and NOT as the geologist learn today.Here is the article:Magnetic shiftBy Jeff Hechttraces 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 35 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 lhttp://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15921483.500-magnetic-shift.htmlThe geologist I have talked to have told me that there have been up to eight poles at the same time on the Earth. That is the only way they can explain away this discovery.
But we haven`t had more than two poles. Just read this new article here:http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2009/10/091002132350.htmSo when you say: "There is no evidence for this. The paleomag data indicate otherwise.", that isn`t true at all. The evidence says there had only been two poles and the evidence says that the continents have been clustered to Equator. That`s the truth!The question here is why don`t the geologist`s care about this specific findings at all?The sciens demand a open mind,curiosity, and a desire to discover what really happened here on Earth in the past. I feel there is only a few who lives after those principles.There are few who dare to think independently and make up their own opinions of one reason or another.

Yes , I know that, but there is something thats convinces me and that is the locations of the oldest fosils we known, the Ediacara fosils.If I put those locations in the Pangaea model, those locations shows a cluttered image at once.But if I put this locations in my model, something strange happend at once, at that is all this locations get into a unik system.Please, take a closer look at the pictures on this page: http://www.aspevik.net/lifestartedinnorth.htmEdited by Aspevik, : No reason given.

Yes, my theory is either very stupid, otherwise it's just amazing that we find most of the discovery areas of these fosils who by chance formed an exact half circle on my model.http://www.aspevik.net/lifestartedinnorth.htmIt is also amazing that some of the largest gold deposits in the world would now lay close to each other if we put them into my model.And it is amazing that a huge areas of minerals fits perfect together on south and north-Americas west cost if we lay them togheter and compare the minerals there.And it is amazing that the mountain range on both side is parallel to each other if we take a closer look at them.It is also amazing that all continents constitute a belt around Equator, only by moving the Gondwanaland.I am sure the geologist have done a big mistake someplace in the beginning when they construct their model, and a larger mistake when they builds on this mistake.My theory is simple. Instead of Pangaea the continents formed a
belt around the equator, spun out as the earth cooled by the same force who press the poles togheter and lift Equator out 15 kilometers, as the same as all other planets we known about.This page you shows me here is not a evidence at all, it is only a result of a guesswork built on something who is wrong from the start.We only need to compare the areas in North and South-America after we have put the coast togheter to find the truth.I know that soner or later somebody will compare those landmasses.

If we are to find out if my theory is right or wrong, it's actually just to comparing North America with South America, when these two lands are put together like here on figur 4: http://www.aspevik.net/themovements.htmThat is just all my theory stands or falls on.

Yes, I have some thoughts about this. When the continents was formed as a belt aroundt the Earth, some sort of a metor hit the seafloor from north, northwest and
penetrated there where the Cannada-bassin are today.This metor broken up the continents and get into the Earth. I have read that more heavier metal we have, deeper we have to go into the eath to find it. Some people mean there is a lot of liquid gold near the middle of the Eart, because it is so heavy.When this meteor penetraded the crust og get further into the Earth,this new mass press the gold up into "veins" in the area nearby the impact zone.There fore I belive these findings are so close to each other. But some of this gold didn`t follow the "veins" the metorit made. In Alaska and in the area there, the goldt have been picked from the surface and I belive it was "pumped" up ant out over this area as a result of this hit.But that is just something I have just think about a litle. Edited by Aspevik, : No reason given.

Heh, heh... Any line on the globe will probably intersect some of the largest gold deposits in the world. As it is, your line omits every major gold producing district in North America. Take that with the loss of the Arabian and Brazilian shields and West Africa, most of eastern Siberia, Western Australia, Central America and Venezuela and I'd say you've got a major failure. Remind me not to hire you on my next expedition.Just draw these places into my model, and tell mee what do you see then? ;-)

Thank you!

Ok, I see. :-) But on my model the gold deposit is clustered on one part of the globe and not over the whole globe. :-) And the same senter of these deposits are the same senter we find when we look at fossils here at figure 3: http://www.aspevik.net/lifestartedinnorth.htm

I would make a map, just for you :-) You told me that you couldn.`see any patteren and it looks better on your maps... ;-) I talk about the Ediacara fossils as I have written about here: http://www.aspevik.net/lifestartedinnorth.htmIf you read this theory or just read my links I have linked to over here, you will see that I have named this fossils there.Here is the finding areas on pangea: And here are the same finding areas on my map: The withe area on my map is where I beliv a meteor hit the seafloor when these anilmals lived. It was also a big climatic change at this time, and yhe scientist hav found a lot of carbon in the rocks from this period.I belive that the continents was seperated at this time by a metor and the same disaster burried these animals in sand from the area where the metor hit.If you don`t se any pattern here, I can`t help you any more.I also mean this hit created a lot of veins in the crust, there we have found gold later.