Untitled Document

Diagnosis Review:

The World Upside Down by Kris and Jo Van Den Driesche

The World Upside Down by Kris and Jo Van Den Driesche says on the back cover that it will "fascinate and astound those who read it". .. well, it was certainly quite astounding.

On the plus side, the authors present the interesting idea that the alternative precession theory combined with Dmitriev 's plasma theories could signify a changing orientation betwen heliopspheric plasma and interstellar plasma, and that this could reach a crescendo every half-precession cycle, when the magnetic fields of the planets of the solar system all reverse.

But on the downside, the miscalculation of radio-carbon correction applied to ocean sediment evidence, so as to force -fit an exact 12,888-year half-precession cycle (when precession cannot be calculated that accurately, since it is only an average of a changing cycle due to the changing obliquity of the ecliptic), makes the whole boook seem contrived. Ignoring questions such as why the outer planets have not turned upside down, which they should have according to the theory presented, adds to the poor quality of the research. Worst of all, though, is the complete mess in chapter 15, where the authors have copied down a line from Michael Coe, and mixed the start and end-dates, causing a 6,000-year error that contradicts what they have just written , but don't check to see if it is their mistake. Since they dont have a bibliography and reference section, only giving one or two references throughout the book, the wild claims cannot be checked on.

The first nine chapters attempt to rewrite the textbook on cosmology, astrophysics and plate tectonics, but these theories are only background to the main theory, that the geographical poles (as opposed to magnetic poles) will rotate by 180 degrees in 2012 - in other words, the world will turn upside down!

Chapter 10 explains the possibility that the Precession of the Equinoxes is caused by caused by the rotation of our solar system around another point in the "Orion arm" of the Milky Way. This is usually known as the "dark star theory", but the authors' diagrams explain it simply, so it is easy to understand. The authors assert, however, that the length of the Precession cycle is exactly 25,776 years - a figure originating (though they give no reference) with Egyptologist Jane Sellers.

In Chapter 11, it is suggested that the Earth's magnetic field, and that of the other planets, are governed by the magnetic orientation of the heliosphere, since all the inner planets align with it, while the outer ones are at 180 degrees to it.

In Chapter 12, it is claimed that there is a 22,000-year solar cycle that was discovered by "Russian scientists, Saks, Belov and Lapina who carried out some climatological research by taking samples from the bottom of the Arctic Ocean". The authors then go on to explain that the 22,000-year cycle was calculated using the radio carbon dating method (Carbon 14 breaks down in organic matter at a steady rate, so the age can be calculated by the C14 content). The authors go on to state, correctly, that it was later found that the C14 levels in the atmosphere are not constant, so the system bacame unreliable for dating, until it was modified by records from old sequoia and bristlecone pine trees. However, they say, " Hans E. Suess calculated how "fast" the C14 atomic clock is running. He came to the conclusion that a site dated at 1800 BC using the C14 method actually originated in 2500 BC This gives a difference of 700 years." They go on to conclude that if this correction factor is used, then the 11,000-year half-cycle of the 22,000-year cycle will become 12,888 years. They go on to use this figure for their further calculations in the rest of the book (12,888 years is, conveniently, exactly half their figure for the Precession cycle).

In other words , if a site was originally dated at 1800 BC - 3,800 years old, it should really be dated at 2500 BC - 4,500 years old - that means it is 700 years older for every 3,800 years (3,800 / 700 = 5.42857143 so this is the correction factor). However, when this is applied to 11,000 years, we DO NOT get 12,888 - we get 13,026 years!

They go on to conclude that every 12,888 years, the magnetic field of the heliosphere collapses , causing the Sun to undergo a polar shift, (which they say could be either magnetic or geographic) . The work of Alexey Dmitriev is cited as evidence that the interstellar plasma is building up on the edge of the heliosphere, and when this is combined with the alternative precession theory of chapter 10, it means that every half-precession cycle, the direction of the interstellar plasma will switch sharply as the solar system nears the Sagittarius arm of the Milky Way , where the interstellar plasma is moving in a different direction.

Chapter 13 lists the solar system changes that were advertised by Dmitriev. Earth's accelerating movement of its magnetic poles; a weakening magnetic field; increasing incidence of storms due to plasma buildup in the ionosphere; atmospheric and/or magnetic field changes on all the planets of the solar system. An interesting point made by the authors is that the magnetic fields of the outer planets have already reversed, (Neptune, Uranus, Saturn and Jupiter all have fields opposite to the Earth's - not enough info is available on Pluto) - as if the effect is coming in, towards the centre of the solar system. The authors think that a sudden magnetic reversal of the heliosphere will cause the iron core of earth to spin 180 degrees, pulling the geographic poles with it. BUT WHY DIDN'T THIS HAPPEN ON THE OUTER PLANETS?

Chapter 14 states that the magnetic poles, according to "geological research" (no references given) may jump thousands of kilometers in one day. Ancient myths are quoted, such as the Egyptian one describing previous ages in which the position of sunrise and sunset was reversed. However, if the magnetic pole AND geographic pole both rotated 180 degrees, as the authors speculate, then that would not alter the

In chapter 15, the authors come to their amazing conclusion, that in 2012, as the solar system moves from the influence of one arm of the Milky Way into another, a catastrophe will occur. Since the Maya measured their Long Count against precession, and the catastrophes occur at half-precession cycles, then the next one is due in 2012, when we will all be burned, suffocate or drown. HOWEVER, there are many errors in this chapter. The authors presume that the delay of the last maximum of the "11-year sunspot cycle" was caused by the hekiosphere, since it is "ever-punctual", but it has actually varied by up to 3 years, in the past. The authors have clearly been very sloppy in their research of the Maya calendars. They also lifted a diagram form the diagnosis2012 website without any reference or permission.

They ask how the Maya were able to calculate the length of the year more accurately than the modern calculations? This is nonsense, based on early misunderstandings of Maya inscriptions, in which it was though that distance dates on stelae were actually a sort of leap-year correction. they give the 23rd December 2012 end-date (584285 correlation) and the 11 August 3114 BC start-date (584283 correlation) - thus mixing 2 correlations, just as several other confused authors havew domne, such as Laurence Joseph. The Van den Driessches also state that the start-date was "mentioned on written tablets from their pyramid". No. The start-date was inscribed on stelae - not found in or on any pyramid! Worst of all, they say, "the Maya predict that the end of the world will be on 4 Ahau and 8 Cumku which may correspond to 13 August 3114 AD and not to the end of the calendar on 23 December 2012 AD, which is only 4 Ahau and 3 Kankin. So, in other words, despite being so detailed over several millennia, is the Mayan calendar being interpreted correctly?" This is the most patheic misunderstanding ever! They actually quote Michael Coe, Breaking the Maya Code, 1992, p.275, where Coe says, " The Great cycle of the Maya Calendar which began in darkness on 13 August 3114 BC will come to an end after almost five millennia on 23 December AD 2012...the day will be 4 Ahau 3 Kankin."

So, although the authors bring up some interesting ideas, they totally lose all credibility by mixing the 13 August 3114 BC (584285 correlation) start date with the AD end-date, having just got the atart and end-dates almost correct in the same paragraph - the two correlations they mixed are only 2 days apart, but they then go-cross-eyed while copying down Coe's statement and make a 6,000-year error!