Thank you for directing your thoughts to the actual substance of my threads. Appreciated.
I have no idea about the Isis Temple or how it would fit into any pole shift scenario. All I can discuss with you are those structures I have studied fairly closely: Giza pyramids including the 2 sets of satellite pyramids and the Sphinx. My theory of the stars (Orion's Belt) shifting across the sky (i.e. a pole shift event) concerns only those structures.
Drew: I still observe Earth constantly tipping over according to your theory and scaling that little toy out to the size of Earth...we should be seeing the sun rise east, west, east, west, east, west...over and over again as Earth settles, but always the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, such is normal observation, no matter how many times Earth flips over... Your math works...reality overlaid to your math makes it fail though.
The "reality" is that we have many texts from ancient times that testify to the sun rising in the west and setting in the east (and all manner of other such phenomena that can be attributed to pole shift events). I, personally, think we should not be so hasty in dismissing such testimonies. However strange something may seem to us here in our hi-tech modern world, we really don't know everything and a little humility in that regard might stand us in better stead.
The "reality" is also that physicist, Peter Warlow, has shown through physical observations along with mathematical calculations that the Earth can precess to an inverted state without its rotational axis having to change direction. As a result of such an inversion, the now inverted Earth (spinning in the same direction as when it was upright) will see the sun rise in the west and set in the east. That is simply a statement of fact, though one long overlooked by many other physicists.
As you can imagine, Warlow's inversion theory came in for some amount of severe criticism from the scientific community and a number of objections were raised against it, all of which have since been shown to be false objections. See, for example, this paper here.
Good science, as I'm sure you know, always attempts to falsify itself. In that spirit, if you are so convinced that Warlow (and David Salkeld) are wrong with their inversion calculations then I, for one, would like you to show me precisely how they are wrong. And if you can do that then you will have given me every reason to change my own thinking on this particular question.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 27-Jul-21 16:00 by Scott Creighton.