How viable is planet-x and all this poleshift stuff anyway without
really quoting anything from the zetatalk website ?

We know that various scientists over time have looked for "some mass"
out there for various reasons without the influence of zetatalk. In
fact, a Dr. John Murray has postulated the existence of another mass,
possibly a planet or brown dwarf, just 2 or 3 years ago due to the odd
movement of local comets. Most of us know John Anderson of JPL
considered a large mass out there as well in the early eighties. If it
is a dark body, emitting no light or reflecting little/no light, it
would definately be tuff to see with normal scopes, an infrared scope
being preferable! Nevertheless, as scientists we have to agree that,
at times, and even still today, there is evidence that there is
***possibly*** a mass somewhere close by, influencing, at least
gravitationally, our local system.

To the extent in which a large body could influence our planet
magnetically is another question altogether. Many physicists will tell
you the magnetic field doesn't have the range required to cause such
an influence, despite the magnetic field's density in question, but
also cannot explain *why* a magnetic field does what it does. We also
know at least our Van Allen belt stretches some 4000 miles into space,
but the moon is also 238,000 some miles out. However, the earth has
gone through magnetic reversal of the poles, numerous times, because
of **something**. From what we understand of our Earth's core and
internals, it is extremely unlikely that a "poleshift mechanism"
exists internal to the Earth, so *logically* one would consider an
external reason. Yet, from typical ideas of magnetic fields and their
reach, it seems such a magnetic influence is unlikely to be possible.

This, however, is all on the basis of typical understanding of
magnetic fields and their interactions amongst themselves and
matter/energy. There is evidence that there a magnetic field stretches
throughout the galaxy, but only to the point of influencing stellar
dust particles. The source of which is considered be some to possibly
be the center of our galaxy, which is a black hole! If it is true that
some stretching magnetic field exists for an 'endlessly sucking'
blackhole that negates some physicists ideas that a magnetic field
couldn't possibly reach far enough to have influence. I personally
think this seemingly omni-present, galactic magnetic field is because
of a conglomerance of bodies, but nevertheless there seems to be a
stretching magnetic field throughout the galaxy, or at least 'local'
to our solar system influencing specs of space-dust. Perhaps many of
you know of other speculative/hard evidence to veer our ideas of
magnetic fields and their reach to a more plausable conception ?

So, if typical conceptions of magnetic fields, and their reach, are
incorrect and magnetic fields can reach out farther then we have
direct experience with, what does that mean ? It doesn't mean that the
magnetic influence, in terms of strength we're looking for can exist,
thats for sure. But it DOES mean we need to re-examine the
possibilities that a magnetic field *may* be able to influence another
body in the manner we're questioning about. So, who would be canidates
in that search for due influence ?

The sun is the biggest object in our system, but hasn't been that much
of a magnetic influence. It's overall field is much weaker then
earth's, and a lot of it's field lines are looped inward throughout
the surface, as they're believed to help induce the leaping solar
flares we see so much. In fact, some believe the sun's pole reverse
nearly periodically. However, recent Ulysses data somewhat refutes
that, as they didn't find the field lines in the proper direction not
too long ago and all other 'hard' evidence has been sitting and
watching particles zip about from earth. Plus, the sun's cycles, where
it is believed the magnetic field reverses for the sun, didn't cause a
poleshift here. The sun is an unlikely canidate.

The other planets seem to be way to far to have any influence, and
fields too weak; they've looped past us or lagged in their orbits
without causing a poleshift. There was no poleshift of any sort when
many aligned on may 5th, 2000. The planets locally to our solar system
are also unlikely canidates. So, if its nothing internal to earth, the
other planets, the sun, nor their magnetic influences(if any) on one
another - WHAT THE HELL IS IT ?

I think carefully watching for this missing mass that keeps popping up
in creditable science communities' theories and
observations/inferences and examining how magnetic fields can induce
one another and matter/energy, on a cosmological scale, are essential
to uncovering this mystery. If there is a cosmological reason for
poleshifts we will find out eventually through science and wonder
dammit !

But on a personal note, I just can't get out of my head the many
ancient societies who had accurate astronomy and calendars attuned to
our solar system's body cycles while scientists keep finding preserved
plant life in northen siberia, antartica, and around the artic
circle(not fossils! and YEAH, like it GREW there!), and WE KNOW the
earth goes through poleshifts of some sort. In fact, many scientists
are thinking they happen quickly, NOT gradually over time!

have at it!
parlous

parlous@hotmail.com (Parlous) wrote:

>How viable is planet-x and all this poleshift stuff anyway without
>really quoting anything from the zetatalk website ?
>
<snip>
>. However, the earth has
>gone through magnetic reversal of the poles, numerous times, because
>of **something**. From what we understand of our Earth's core and
>internals, it is extremely unlikely that a "poleshift mechanism"
>exists internal to the Earth, so *logically* one would consider an
>external reason.

Where do you get it is extremely unlikely that a "poleshift
mechanism" exists internal to the earth? If you are referring
to magnetic reversals there is now a modeling/theoretical
basis to explain magnetic reversals "interior" to the earth.

Check:

http://www.sciam.com/askexpert/geology/geology6.html

or

http://www.psc.edu/science/glatzmaier.html

For a description of a couple of the models and the
computing power needed (which has only become
available in the last few years) check:

http://sdcd.gsfc.nasa.gov/ESS/annual.reports/ess96contents/app.st2.olson.html

<The rest snipped because of the invalid first thesis>

Can planet X as a planet or brown dwarf exist? Sure.
Why not? But the planet X proposed by certain people
has not been proven by one shred of scientific proof.
They either say that scientists are in a conspiracy
against them or misquote scientists as their "proof".

And you seem to be confusing magnetic reversals
with physical pole shifts. They are quite different.
Apparent physical pole shifts have also been proposed,
where the earth's overlying crustal plates move at rates
greater than usually seen in plate tectonic mechanisms
of spreading and subduction. These movements are
STILL found to take place over millions of years, not
some instantaneous movement. If you have data to
the contrary please provide the references.

Greg Muncill
Silver Spring, MD