Tue, 6 Apr 1999 From: "Lazenby, Derek" <Derek.Lazenby@AniteSystems.com>
Regardless of the variant of polar shifting one may wish to consider, (Hapgood, Peterson or any body else), can some one explain why it should necessarily be incompatible with tectonics? I ask because it seems to me that the existence slow and rapid crust movements are not mutually exclusive. If, (the operative word!) one can assume that a polar shift is simply a rotation of an outer layer of the onion, then surely all the plates would rotate by similar amounts. The slow creep would be hardly be affected as the relative positions of the plates would be virtually unchanged, hence both mechanisms could operate with little interaction. It seems a shame to me that there should be a tectonics only view, given that one of the major problems initially identified by Hapgood was a mechanism for the movement of the crust, and that tectonics effectively removes it as a problem, thereby enabling the shifting theory to be given new life! So one might think that just "adding a bit extra" to known theory, without in any way invalidating any part of existing theory, would not be unwelcome, especially as there seem to be a number of issues that could be a least partially resolved by accepting polar shifting. Regards Derek Lazenby PS. Any chance of a notification by e-mail of any replies as it may be some time before I visit the site again otherwise. Or even better any chance of replies being forwarded to me?