My conclusion was that silicon had for some reason become relatively more massive than other materials during what I have assumed to have been a catastrophic mass condensation event.
However, a brief inspection of the periodic table of elements reveals the impossibility of any one element becoming relatively more massive than other elements. All elements fit neatly into their spot based on their atomic weight. If Halton Arp was right about mass condensation, then it must be something that affects all atomic nuclei in equal measure. If one element becomes heavier by a certain percent, all elements have to increase in mass by the same relative amount.
The idea that silicon could have grown more massive than other materials can therefore be scrapped. That leaves only one possibility if we are to stick with the assumption that no special technology was used. Men must have been stronger in the past than they are today.
To explain the monolith at Baalbek, a loss of physical strength in men must have coincided with the increase in mass and hardness of the monolith. The monolith became both harder and more massive practically over night, and men became weaker at the same time. The net result of this was that the monolith suddenly became completely impossible to move or cut. What had been quite doable in the immediate past was suddenly impossible.
This can be explained by supposing a change in the hardness of materials.
Silicon appears to have become harder over time. This is why ancient craftsmen could cut with ease into rock that later generations of craftsmen struggled to cut.
Something similar may have happened with carbon, just the other way around. Carbon may have formed stronger bonds in the past.
While silicon became harder over time, carbon became softer.
This would have affected carbon based muscle tissues and silicon based bone tissue. If the monolith at Baalbek became harder due to a catastrophic mass condensation event, that same event may have turned all bone tissues stronger and all muscle tissues weaker.
There would suddenly be a mismatch between muscle strength and bone strength. While everything suddenly became more massive, muscles became weaker. This would have been particularly unfortunate for animals with heavy bone structures. This can therefore explain the extinction of the mammoth.
Mammoth were not any larger than today's elephants, but they had stronger, more bulky, bone structures. This was particularly true for their skulls and tusks, but their other bones were thicker too. This gave them an advantage as long as their mass remained relatively low compared to their muscle strength. They could probably run faster than a modern day elephant, and their huge tusks must have been formidable weapons.
However, once disaster struck and their muscle tissues weakened at the precise same time that their mass increased, they succumbed to their own weight. The last of the woolly mammoths could very well have perished at the precise same time that the craftsmen of Baalbek discovered to their dismay that they could no longer do the things that they were able to do quite recently.
An interesting fact that lends support to this hypothesis is that the bone structure of neolithic man was more robust than that of modern man. This may not have been due to agriculture, as suggested by standard history. Rather, it may have been due to a different muscle strength to bone strength ratio.
With stronger muscles and softer bone tissue, neolithic man must have had more bulky bones in order to utilize his strength. As bones became harder and muscles weaker, the optimal muscle to bone mass ratio has changed towards more slender bones. Bones would also tend to become shorter due to an increase in mass and gravity.
A general trend over time would be that bone structures of animals would tend to become shorter due to an increase in mass and gravity, and also more slender due to bones becoming stronger while muscles become weaker.
When looking at dinosaur bones, this appears to be the case. Not only were the dinosaurs very large, their teeth were not pointy but round, and their bones were bulky, indicating that bone tissue was softer in the past.
In the oceans, there were armored fish and shellfish of many kinds swimming with ease. The reason they did not all sink to the bottom of the sea was that their bones were not as dense as bones are today. Bones were not only softer, they were also more buoyant in water. The razor thin teeth of modern sharks is for similar reasons a relatively modern thing. Ancient sharks had bulkier teeth because otherwise they would break.
It appears then that Halton Arp's mass condensation has two effects on matter. It makes everything more heavy, and it changes the hardness and strength of materials. Specifically, it makes rocks and bones harder and stronger while it makes muscle tissue weaker.
 |
Columbian mammoth |
No comments:
Post a Comment