Monday, July 31, 2017

Salt Water Filling the Oceans Perfectly

The fact that newly created ocean floors on Earth have been perfectly filled with water, neither overflowing the continents (by much), nor letting seafloors go dry, indicate that the water filling our oceans came from within our planet in direct proportion to the expansion of the seafloors.

The saltiness of our oceans gives further support to this hypothesis. There is plenty of salt trapped in the crust of our planet. Water coming up from deep below is therefore likely to be salty.

The visible venting of steam from volcanoes is also an indication of water coming up from below, rather from space.

Taken all together, the evidence is strongly supporting the hypothesis that water in the oceans have come from below. That stretching of Earth's crust has released water in direct proportion to Earth's expansion.

This means that there must be plenty of water buried beneath the crust of our planet.

The question then arises to how this water got trapped so deep below the crust, and my first thought on this was that it must have been trapped there from the start. This would only be possible through a rapid and relatively cold creation process. Hence, the idea that our planet was created in the same supernova that created our Sun. Interstellar water was pulled in together with all sorts of other types of matter to create our planet in a flash.

However, there is another mechanism in which our planet would become full of water, and this requires no cold creation process. Our planet could have been created relatively dry, as a hot blob of matter ejected from either our Sun or a gas planet, and still end up with oceans of water beneath its crust.

The water might be the bi-product of nuclear fission.

Most nuclear fission occurring naturally, chip off relatively light atoms from large atoms. Hydrogen is therefore a very common bi-product of nuclear fission. Oxygen too could be produced this way. Water would then be the end product as hydrogen and oxygen combine to produce water molecules.

We know from observing the tails of comets, that comets generate water. Since comets are dry rocky bodies, the water is produced through fission. We have in other words observational evidence in support for the hypothesis that Earth generates water through fission.

However, the water synthesized by comets are rich in deuterium, a tell tale sign that it is produced through fission of heavy atoms. The extra neutron of deuterium has been taken from an element with plenty of neutrons.

Water on Earth has less deuterium than water in the tails of comets. The way Earth synthesizes water is therefore different from the way comets do it. Still, the fact that comets synthesize water in great quantities through nuclear fission indicates that the process is fairly simple. A rock under electrical stress will produce water.

Comets are rocks. Earth is a rock, and our Sun is most likely a rock too. All synthesize hydrogen and oxygen. All produce water.

Earth expansion seen from the south pole
Earth expansion seen from the south pole


Sunday, July 30, 2017

The Weight of a Proton

So they weighed the proton and found it missing in mass. The difference between the expected weight and the measured weight was a full three standard deviations, which means that the proton was substantially lighter than expected.

At first glance, this may seem like little more than a curiosity. However, it does not require a whole lot of thinking to realize the significance of this measurement.

If protons are a lot lighter than expected, then exothermic fusion may in fact be the myth that I have suspected it to be, and the reason for this is simple.

The whole idea behind exothermic fusion is that mass in the proton is converted to energy when fused with another proton. This requires single protons to be heavier than protons that stick together with other protons and neutrons. With single protons being a lot less heavy than thought, there is a lot less energy to be had from fusing them together.

Stars that are supposedly fueled through hydrogen fusion in a super dense and super hot core, are now suddenly lacking a whole lot of energy. It may even be the case that the energy isn't actually there, in which case stars cannot possibly be fueled through fusion.

This is also a big blow to anyone invested in the promise of virtually limitless energy through controlled fusion on Earth. The energy that can be harvested is much less than has been expected.

The only reason exothermic hydrogen fusion is possible at all may be due to the fact that it isn't regular hydrogen that is used. The exothermic fusion that takes place in so called hydrogen bombs is not due to the fusion of regular hydrogen, but through the fusion of deuterium, a hydrogen isotope in which a neutron has already been fused to the proton.

The energy released in the fusion of two deuterium nuclei to produce a helium nucleus may be entirely due to the freeing of some of the energy that was consumed when the neutron was attached to the proton. The overall process of fusing two neutrons and two protons together to make a helium atom may very well be endothermic. If so, the fusion model of stars can be declared dead and void.

The fact that single protons are much lighter than thought is a very big deal. It puts the standard model of stars into doubt, and it makes controlled hydrogen fusion a lot less likely to ever deliver on its promise of limitless free energy.

When the dust settles around this latest discovery, I suspect that the conclusion will be that only heavy isotopes can produce exothermic fusion, and that fusion in general is endothermic.

Atomic nuclei of hydrogen, deuterium, helium, lithium and beryllium
Atomic nuclei of hydrogen, deuterium, helium, lithium and beryllium

Transmutation Through Condensation and Evaporation

If mass condensation is a real process that happens in nature, then some interesting possibilities arise when it comes to the transmutation of elements.

If a proton, instead of absorbing an electron-positron pair, was to consume an electron only, it would turn into a neutron, and if a neutron, instead of absorbing an electron-positron pair, was to consume a positron only, it would turn into a heavy proton.

Elements can in this way move up and down the periodic table. Instead of fusing a hydrogen atom to a silicon atom to produce phosphorus, an existing neutron in a silicon atom can be turned into a proton by adding a positron, or by removing an electron.

Both processes would produce phosphorus from silicon. The only difference is in the type of isotope produced. One process would produce a more radioactive variant of phosphorus than the other.

Going the other way, a phosphorus atom can be transmuted into a silicon atom by either removing a proton from the phosphorous nucleus, or by adding an electron to a proton. Alternatively removing a positron.

Having named the process of adding charged quanta to existing nuclei, condensation, the appropriate name for the reverse process is presumably evaporation.

This means that transmutation of elements can happen through the processes of nuclear fusion, nuclear fission, mass condensation and mass evaporation:

  • Nuclear fusion: fusing two or more atomic nuclei together
  • Nuclear fission: splitting one nucleus into two or more parts
  • Mass condensation: adding charged particles to existing nuclei
  • Mass evaporation: removing charged particles from existing nuclei

Beta decay is a form of mass evaporation, and so is free neutron decay. Both have been observed in laboratory experiments. Reversing these processes, we get mass condensation. No doubt, both mass evaporation and mass condensation happen in nature. Together with nuclear fusion and fission, nature is equipped with a total of four mechanisms to transmute matter from one element to another.

In light of this, the idea that matter may be transmuted by living organisms is not as strange as it may first appear. Nor is the idea of instantaneous fossilization

Mass Accumulation and Condensation

The two phenomena of inertia and gravity are commonly described as mass. But mass is a pure abstraction. It doesn't exist as an identifiable physical element. It arises from the complex interaction of the charged quanta that make up atoms. Blow an atom to bits, and all that can be seen are charged bits of various sizes. No mass particle can be found, nor any inertia-particle or gravity-particle.

Charged quanta produce inertia and gravity when interacting with each other to make up matter in much the same way free moving charge produce electric current and magnetism, and free charge at rest produce electrostatics.

On the macro level, mass can grow in two ways. It can be accumulated, and it can be condensed.

Mass accumulation is achieved when a body consumes another body. When we eat a hamburger, we accumulate mass. Mass accumulation is the normal everyday way things grow. In this process, nothing mysterious is going on. This is what we all think of when we see something or someone putting on weight.

However, according to Halton Arp, there is another way things can put on weight. Instead of accumulating mass through the consumption of bits of matter, a body can put on weight through condensation. Instead of adding another body's atoms to our body, things can grow in weight by condensing charged quanta onto existing atoms.

Mass condensation is a hypothetical process in which high energy photons are absorbed as mass in the nuclei of atoms. High energy photons are known to produce electron-positron pairs in the presence of strong electromagnetic fields, typically in close vicinity of atomic nuclei. The protons and neutrons in the nuclei subsequently snap up the pairs, growing their mass in the process.

Mass condensation is a hypothetical possibility that does not violate any of the fundamental laws of physics. There is a conservation of energy throughout the process. The energy present in photons are converted to matter and consumed by the nuclei of nearby atoms.

I'm currently treating mass condensation as a real physical phenomenon, and I'm using the term consistently to mean the accumulation of mass through electron-positron consumption by atomic nuclei.

Mass condensation is a very different process than mass accumulation. While mass accumulation can be likened to us putting on weight through the consumption of hamburgers, mass condensation would be the process of laying in the sun and putting on weight by the direct conversion of photons into matter. This is beyond photosynthesis, which is a chemical process. This is a nuclear process in which charged quanta are added directly to the atomic nucleus.

Mass condensation: Small atoms + photon radiation = larger atoms

Saturday, July 29, 2017

Falling Sea Levels

I never understood why global warming necessarily should lead to rising sea levels. The amount of ice on the Antarctic and Greenland is determined mainly by precipitation, and all climate models predict an increase in this. It can't really be any other way, because Antarctica is one of the driest places on the planet. Climate change can hardly make it drier. Any change will be towards more precipitation.

Regardless of which way the climate is going, sea levels will be falling, and the latest data from NASA supports this prediction.

Marie Byrd Land, West Antarctica by NASA.jpg


Impossible Fossilisations and Transmutations

Here's a series of interesting observations regarding the transmutation of matter:

According to this video, screws, sledgehammers and even electrical plugs have been found inside rocks that are allegedly millions of years old.

The narrator never doubts the scientists who make the claim that the rocks are as old as they claim. Scientists are apparently never wrong. Therefore, he concludes that 19th century screws and sledgehammers, as well as 20th century electric plugs were around millions of years ago.

This is of course nonsense. The artifacts are no older than they appear to be.

What has happened is that clay and mud have turned into rock through some kind of transmutation. Most probably with the help of a lightning strike.

This is what Peter Mungo Jupp thinks happened to most, if not all, plants and animals that we have found fossilized in rock. It happened almost instantaneously through a process of electric fossilization.

That would require one element to transmute into another element. Calcium in bones would have to become silicon. Such a process is nuclear, not chemical, and nuclear reactions are believed to only be possible inside advanced human made nuclear reactors. Could it really be the case that nuclear reactions of this kind could happen spontaneously in nature, fossilizing animals, trees, and human artifacts in the process?

As it happens, the process of transmutation may in fact be far more commonplace than we have thought. It may be going on inside biological organisms all the time. Organisms living in environments starved for certain base elements appear to be able to synthesize the elements they require through fission and fusion processes.

This is not bio-chemistry. It is bio-alchemy! Living organisms are able to do things that cannot be done in any chemistry lab on the planet, because this is not chemistry. It is nuclear physics.

So, how exactly are we to imagine biological organisms doing nuclear physics?

The answer lies most probably in electricity. What separates living organisms from mere blobs of organized matter is their electrical spark of life. This electricity can be used to zap atomic nuclei, either to split atoms through fission, or to join atoms through fusion.

All living organisms are advanced nuclear and chemical reactors. They do not stop at chemistry, they do nuclear physics too.

What fossilized ancient plants and animal is the same process that has fossilized modern artifacts, and it is similar to what is going on at a microscopic scale inside every living organism. Matter is constantly being transmuted through electrical processes at everything from gigantic cosmic scales down to the subatomic.

Staccoto Lightning.jpg
Lightning

By Griffinstorm - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, Link

Friday, July 28, 2017

A Widening of Orbits

While writing about Jupiter's dysfunctional relationship with his father, I touched upon a mechanism that could explain how Jupiter was first drawn close to the Sun, only to spiral back out towards Saturn.

The idea was that Jupiter was made of matter starved for mass. Coming from deep inside Saturn, the matter that made up Jupiter had been shielded from gamma-rays. It did not have the same heavy protons and neutrons as matter closer to the surface of Saturn. However, once out in the open, the matter comprising Jupiter quickly put on mass by soaking up gamma-rays and other high energy photons.

Jupiter started out relatively small and light, but grew quickly through mass condensation and mass accumulation, soaking up high energy photons as well as all sorts of rubble and rocks that crossed its path.

Jupiter was initially drawn quite close to the Sun, but its increase in mass made it gradually spiral outwards, knocking out planets on its way. The so called Titans were either obliterated or thrown out of the solar system by an increasingly veracious Jupiter.

The whole process took allegedly a mere ten years. However, I suspect it lasted considerably longer than that.

What made Jupiter spiral outwards was the fact that it was putting on mass at a far quicker rate in percentage terms than the Sun. The gravitational field of the Sun was relatively constant throughout the entire period, while Jupiter's mass increased rapidly. The net result of this was that Jupiter's orbit widened.

What is particularly interesting about this is that it appears as if a widening of orbits is something that is still taking place. Not only for Jupiter, but for all planets and moons. We know for a fact that our Moon is receding from us, and there are good reasons to believe that the same is true for planets around the Sun. How else could ancient astronomers have made such accurate observations of planets, if not due to a relatively closer proximity?

So the mechanism that sent Jupiter first in towards the Sun and then spiraling out towards Saturn appears to be a universal one that applies to all orbits. It appears as if relatively small objects are putting on mass at a relatively higher rate than large objects.

If our Moon is gaining mass quicker than Earth, the orbit would widen. The same would be the case for Earth and the Sun if Earth is putting on mass quicker in relative terms than the Sun.

So what's going on?

The answer lies in the way mass is increasing. It increases through the production and absorption of electron-positron pairs by neutrons and protons. Such pairs are generated by high energy photons when they come into contact with the strong electromagnetic fields of atomic nuclei. This happens at a greater rate close to the surface of an object than deeper inside. This follows directly from the fact that high energy photons are stopped on their way in towards the center of planets.

Since small objects have relatively large surface areas compared to their bulk, they soak up high energy photons at a relatively quicker rate than larger objects. Small objects grow their mass quicker in relative terms than larger objects. It is inevitable then, that planets will gain mass relatively quicker than stars, and moons gain mass relatively quicker than planets. As a consequence, all orbits widen over time.
Opposing forces yielding stable orbits
Opposing forces yielding stable orbits

Is Saturn Jupiter's Father?

According to Immanuel Velikovsky, ancient myths should be taken as records of actual astronomical events. When a myth tells us that Venus is the daughter of Jupiter, that should be interpreted literally in the sense that Venus came out of Jupiter through planetary fission.

So, are we then to suppose that Jupiter is the son of Saturn, as relayed in the story about the war of the Titans?

Jupiter is larger than Saturn. Could it nevertheless have been formed from Saturn, and could this have happened within human history?

Putting on our Velikovsky glasses we'll see if we can make sense of the story in terms of astronomical events:

It all started with a prophesy in which Saturn is told that he is to be dethroned by his own son. In response to this, Saturn starts eating his own children. As soon as one is born, he swallows it.

Astronomically, this sounds like a large planet under electrical stress. It produces one child after another. However, none of them manage to break free from their parent. The energy hill preventing planets from spontaneously falling apart is too steep for the children to get across. They orbit the planet once or twice before falling back into it.

Fed up with Saturn's habit of eating his own children, Saturn's wife hides one of her children and feed Saturn a rock instead.

Saturn and Saturn's wife are probably two aspects of the same planet. In Hindu religion, all deities come in a masculine and a feminine version. It was almost certainly the same for the Olympic gods.

Astronomically, we can interpret this as Saturn spawning a large moon, and swallowing a comet, or some minor moon.

What's interesting at this point is that Jupiter is not described as particularly big. There was no doubt about who was the father and who was the son.

Saturn's wife hides Jupiter in the shadows of a cave: Jupiter disappears for a while. Astronomers cannot find him anywhere.

When Jupiter reappears, he's big enough to pick a fight with his father. His first attack makes Saturn throw up the children that he ate:

The close encounter between Saturn and Jupiter makes Saturn throw off large amounts of matter.

Jupiter joins forces with his liberated siblings, and declares war on his father and all other Titans. Ten years of war follow in which the Olympians and Titans do battle.

The matter separated from Saturn is partially consumed by Jupiter and partially included as moons. Jupiter starts a grand tour of the solar system in which planets are obliterated and/or thrown out of the solar system. The planets that survive are the Olympians. The planets that get destroyed are the Titans.

After a ten year rampage, Jupiter returns to Saturn. By then, Jupiter has joined forces with the Cyclopses and Hecatonchires. Throwing hundreds and hundreds of rocks at Saturn, and striking him with great bolts of lightning, Jupiter finally wins against Saturn and expel him to the edge of creation:

Jupiter finally wins control of the inner orbit, previously controlled by Saturn, and Saturn is expelled to a wider, more distant orbit.

Jupiter marries his sister, and starts pumping out children:

At regular intervals, Jupiter spawns a moon.

It all makes sense of sorts. However, it seems strange that Jupiter could have grown to become so much larger than Saturn merely by joining forces with other moons and minor planets.

What might have been going on in addition to the consumption of a large number of asteroids and other rocks, is a process of rapid mass condensation.

If the matter that Jupiter was created from came from deep withing Saturn, it may have been well shielded from gamma-rays and therefore starved for mass. Once out into the free, this mass starved matter converted high energy photons to mass at an impressive rate. Coming close to the Sun, there would have been an abundance of radiation for Jupiter to feed on.

Growing in mass, Jupiter would swell up due to internal pressure, and it would become heavier in terms of inertia. This would send Jupiter back out in a wider orbit, ready to do battle with his father.

Saturn had initially given birth to a planet far smaller and less dense than himself. But rapid mass condensation, paired with a healthy diet of asteroids, comets and minor moons, may have been sufficient to make Jupiter larger than his father.

This whole story seems a little contrived, but it makes sense, and it makes the ancient myths a lot less weird.

Now, if Jupiter could only give birth to a moon or two in the coming years, the debate around this would definitely take a new turn. Proving the last part of the story is true, the earlier parts of the story would appear less strange, and Velikovsky's view would come back in vogue. It would go a long way in proving that Saturn really is Jupiter's father.

Francisco de Goya, Saturno devorando a su hijo (1819-1823).jpg

Saturn Devouring His Son
By Francisco Goya - [1], Public Domain, Link

Thursday, July 27, 2017

The Formula Revisited

After being challenged to come up with a mathematical formula for the capacitor model, I've come up with several versions, all of which have Newton's formula as its main part.

The main part derives directly from the fact that the capacitor model suggests that gravity dipoles attract inertia universally regardless of which end is used. They act therefore as a mono-poles, just as Newton suggested. This means that Newton's shell theorem applies to this part of the formula. The long range attracting force can be calculated from the center of objects, and we get:
F = GM(q1)M(q2)/r^2
where
G is the gravitational constant
M() is a function for inertia based on charge quanta
q1 is the total charge carrying quanta in object 1
q2 is the total charge carrying quanta in object 2
r is the distance between the centers of object 1 and 2
This is basically Newton's formula with variable mass, as described by Halton Arp.

The short range repelling force due to dipoles acting against each other is far less straight forward to describe, and it is probably a mistake to include it as a specific formula at this point.

However, the repelling force needs to be mentioned, since it is responsible for the hollow assumed to exist inside planets, moons and stars. It is also assumed to produce a short range repulsion between large objects, should they come into close contact with each other.

The short range repelling force is likely to obey the inverse cube law. However, dipoles do not conform to Newton's shell theorem, so the force will appear to emanate from some point other than the center of objects. The apparent origin may even change with distance and geometry. This force may have more in common with the energy hill described in chemistry, where compounds resists spontaneous binding, than regular gravitational pull.

The repelling force may best be described as an unknown complex function of q1, q2 and r.
ShortRangeRepellingForce(q1, q2, r)
That would give us the full formula:
F = GM(q1)M(q2)/r^2 - ShortRangeRepellingForce(q1, q2, r)
The exact nature of the short range repelling force may never be discovered. However, there should be measurable evidence for its existence in the form of hollows inside planets and a resistance to collisions between stellar objects.

Anyone feeling up to the task can go ahead and make a formula for the repelling force based on the integral of dipoles arranged in a sphere. Such a task is far beyond my capabilities in integral calculus, so I'm not going to attempt it. But it might be fun for someone who's good in this kind of stuff.

Alternatively, we can wait and see what sort of data turns up as we delve deeper into the exact nature of hollow planets. There might one day be enough data to derive from them a formula for the short range repelling force.

On further deliberation I have since come to the conclusion that the repelling force described above is nothing more mysterious than the electrostatic force. From this we get a repelling electric force that acts between surfaces, and an attracting gravity that acts from the centre of bodies.

Attracting gravity, repelling electrostatics
Attracting gravity, repelling electrostatics

This solution can in turn be used to explain the remarkable stability of orbits. It can also be used to defend the position that planets are hollow at their core.

Cause and Effect

When it comes to gravity and the expanding Earth, every theory assumes that gravity has increased as a consequence of the expansion.

However, the precise opposite appears to be the case. Instead of gravity having increased due to the expansion of our planet, the expansion is a consequence of an increase in gravity.

This is the logical conclusion from joining the electric dipole model of gravity with Halton Arp's mass condensation hypothesis. With an increase in inertia and gravity due to mass condensation, the short range repelling factor of gravity is boosted, causing pressures to increase inside planets.

Gravity is not increasing due to Earth's expansion. Earth is expanding because of an increase in gravity.

Expanding Earth seen from the south pole

Wednesday, July 26, 2017

Is Venus Jupiter's Daughter?

According to ancient myths, Venus is the daughter of Jupiter or Saturn.

The myths are not easy to decipher on a casual first reading, and it is not clear who was Venus' rightful father. However, Immanuel Velikovsky didn't let the obscurity of these old stories stop him from coming to some rather controversial conclusions about their meaning. In his book, Worlds in Collision, he suggests that the ancient myths are in fact stories of real planetary events observed by humans.

According to Velikovsky, Jupiter ejected Venus into our solar system some time around 1500 BC. This event led in turn to several close encounters between our planets before everything finally settled down.

Jupiter ejecting Venus
Jupiter ejecting Venus

This idea has been taken seriously by Electric Universe enthusiasts who see a whole range of anecdotal evidence in support of the theory. One being the fact that ancient myths all over the world have described Venus as either being a man with a long beard or a woman with long flowing hair, indicating that planet Venus must have had a comet-like tail.

Venus is also a hot planet, as if just out of the oven, so to speak. Venus rotates very slowly, and in the opposite direction of all the other planets of our solar system, indicating that she has still not settled properly into her place.

Lately, there has emerged evidence to suggest that Venus' rotation is slowing down, and many Electric Universe enthusiasts would not be surprised if Venus was to completely stop rotating one day, only to start rotating the other way. Venus will one day fall completely into line with every other planet, and rotate the same way, and at a rate that is appropriate for her size and position in the solar system.

The evidence in support of this theory are compelling. I like the theory. The idea is that large bodies such as stars and gas giants become electrically stressed from time to time. To relieve this stress, they eject matter in the form of planets and moons.

Normally, stars eject planets, and planets eject moons. However, if the stress is particularly strong, a large planet may eject an object so large that it escapes its gravitational grasp, gets captured by the nearby star, and end up as a planet. This is what Velikovsky in essence suggested in his book.

Valles Marineris on Mars and the Grand Canyon on Earth may well have been carved up electrically by Venus in a close encounter shortly after her birth. The story fits well with the general idea of an electric universe.

Also, if planets and moons are born out of storms on planets and stars, chances are that they are born hollow, because storms are hollow. There's an eye in the middle of all storms, which would fit well with the expanding Earth theory

Donald Scott's supernova mechanism, in which planets might be formed together with the star at the center of the z-pinch, is another possibility, which does not exclude the birthing theory described for Venus.

Donald Scott's idea allows for very cold matter to be pulled together so quickly that planets would form with a cold centre, and an outer crust hardened to granite. The gases trapped inside the planets would then provide internal pressure for future expansion as they gradually thaw.

Adding to this that gravity and inertia might increase over time through a mechanism of mass condensation, as suggested by Halton Arp in his work on what he calls intrinsic red-shift, there emerges another possibility for the expanding Earth theory to merge with Velikovsky theory.

If Earth, like Venus, and every other planet and moon, have been born from either the Sun or nearby planets, then the size of their initial hollow would in part be determined by the strength of gravity at the time of creation. As gravity and inertia increase over time, pressure builds up inside every planet, moon and star.

Furthermore, mass condensation will make matter more radioactive. Large nuclei will fall apart as protons and neutrons increase in mass. Matter that was once neutral, becomes radioactive. This means that where there was one large atom, there might be two smaller atoms at a later time. The volume of matter increases over time. Planets and moons will therefore have a natural tendency to expand due to gravitational pressure and nuclear fission. At some point, every single planet and moon will start to expand. When this happens depends on the exact composition of the object, and its age.

It appears then that there is no conflict between the expanding Earth theory and Velikovsky's theory that Venus is Jupiter's daughter.

Tuesday, July 25, 2017

T-Rex was a Speed Monster

Every now and again there appears a study in the news, telling us that the Tyranosaurus Rex could hardly move, which makes one wonder what these scientists think about the Brontosaurus, or any other dinosaur more than twice the size of the T-Rex.

On the one hand, scientists stick religiously to the idea that gravity and inertia has stayed unchanged since the time of the dinosaurs, and on the other hand they refuse to acknowledge the consequence of this, that dinosaurs larger than the T-Rex would be impossible in today's environment.

Then they go on to tell us that the T-Rex was a slow and sluggish monster, easily outrun by any humans if they had been around to experience them. T-Rex crawled around sluggishly, dragging their useless fleshy tails behind them. Unable to hunt, they sent their hatchlings out to find food and bring it back to the cave where the frightened and helpless T-Rex adults spent most of their days sleeping.

The fact that the shape of the animal indicates that it must have been capable of great speeds fail to impress our scientists. Darwin's principles somehow do not apply to dinosaurs. Their shape had nothing to do with their function. T-Rex was designed for speed. That's clear from just looking at it. Yet, that's something we can ignore.

Elaborate computer models are used to establish the obvious. T-Rex would hardly be able to move in today's gravity. They spend all this public money to tell us this. Yet they refuse to to even consider the alternative, let alone calculate what T-Rex could have been capable of in an environment of lower gravity and less inertia.

In such an environment, T-Rex would no doubt have outrun any human with ease. No mammal today can run faster than T-Rex could, and the reason for this is easy to explain. With less gravity, T-Rex's muscles would have been dedicated to speed, rather than fighting gravity. With less inertia, the monster could accelerate, jump and turn with ease. Its big fleshy tail functioned as a steering stick, stabilizing it as it charged straight ahead. Should its prey jump to the side, T-Rex would flip its tail to the side and turn on a dime.

T-Rex was very much the frightening speed monster that every casual observer of it has assumed it to be. To doubt such a thing, requires a PhD from a prestigious university. Only well educated idiots can say with a straight face that T-Rex was sluggish and hardly capable of moving.

Tyranosaurus
Tyranosaurus

By Marcin Polak from Warszawa / Warsaw, Polska / Poland
Tyranozaur RexUploaded by FunkMonk, CC BY 2.0,
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=31365817

A Quick and Easy Way to Build a Pyramid

Commenting on my post about the economics of building efficiently, titled Because it Was Quick and Easy, Steven Baker pointed out the possibility that the stones of the pyramids may have been artificially made.

This video shows how it could have been done.

Note that the finished product is pretty much indistinguishable from natural rock. Over time, as the rocks have hardened further, the difference between the artificial rocks and the real thing has become even harder to discern.

Instead of the multi-ton stone blocks having been cut and transported, and then placed into position with amazing accuracy, they were simply constructed on site, using a wood cast filled with the required material.

This is a technique that makes a lot of sense. It drastically reduces the labor required to construct the pyramids. Any engineer aware of this technique at the time of their construction would have promoted it as a labor saving trick.

However, this does not mean that all the mysteries of the pyramids and other ancient buildings have been solved. There are giant statues, megaliths and obelisks. There are granite chambers and finely worked granite sarcophagi.

The granite walls of ancient Inca buildings in which stones are fitted together as tightly as the stones of the pyramids, suggest to me that they too may in fact have been molded into place. If so, a number of mysteries related to granite would be solved. But could granite be synthesized in a similar manner to that of the pyramid blocks? We know of no such technique today.

If the ancients knew of a technique in which granite could be made soft and malleable like clay, it either stopped working at some point, or it is proof of a lost technology.

It appears that we still have to stick with the hypothesis that rocks have become harder and heavier over time in order to explain all the mysteries of ancient architecture without resorting to giants or lost ancient technologies.

Kheops-Pyramid.jpg
Kheops pyramid

By Nina
Own work, CC BY 2.5, Link

Monday, July 24, 2017

Because it Was Quick and Easy

When faced with the task of determining how to build something, engineers in charge of a project will consider several options from which they will choose the quickest and easiest.

This is simple economics. We do not deliberately waste resources.

In the case of the Tower of Babel described in the Bible, the best method was determined to be bricks and slime, which seems like a reasonable choice of materials for relatively primitive men.

However in Egypt, when faced with the task of constructing a pyramid, the engineers chose to use multi-ton rocks.

Kheops-Pyramid.jpg

By Nina
Own work, CC BY 2.5, Link

The size of these rocks must have been considered ideal, or they would have chosen a different dimension. After all, they were putting stones on top of each other to produce a triangular shaped building. Any size rock would do.

This means that it is not enough for us to figure out how the rocks could have been cut, moved and put into place. We must also answer the economic question. We must find out why this particular technique was considered superior to all the other options available.

As long as there are obvious alternatives to the methods suggested by historians, we cannot say that we have solved the puzzle. The obvious alternative in the case of the pyramids would have been to use smaller rocks, or bricks and slime as suggested in the Bible.

The question that has to be answered is why they chose big rocks rather than smaller ones.

It must have been the quickest and easiest option. But how could that have been?

Did Ancient Egyptians Build the Pyramids?

If we take the ancient recordings found on the walls inside pyramids on face value, it looks as if a giant people existed, and that this giant people both cut the stones and put them on top of each other to produce the pyramids.

From the drawings, we can estimate the size of these giants to have been about 5 meters tall.

However, people of that size could not have existed a mere 4000 years ago because gravity back then would have been too strong. The maximum size of a human being would have been larger than what it is today, due to reduced gravity. But 5 meters is way too much.

Estimates based on giants mentioned in the Bible max out at about 3 meters, which is within reason. Neolithic man is known to have been larger than present day man. The largest ones may have been 2 meters or more.

It is not unreasonable to believe that there were in fact giants in the Earth in ancient times. However, they could not have been 5 meters tall.

This means that if the 5 meter tall giants were the official explanation for the pyramids back in ancient Egyptian times, the authorities on the subject were merely making up an explanation for what was already there, or ancient Egyptian times must have been much farther back in time than the official 4000 years.

Either way, it was not the people who inhabited Egypt 4000 years ago who built the pyramids.

The pyramids must have been built at a time when it was possible to cut and move the enormous stones, a time when gravity was quite a lot less than it is today, making all the stones less heavy to move. Under such conditions, people would have had superhuman strength compared to what we have today. People could also have been larger.

These larger, stronger people may have been the ones that put the pyramids together. Alternatively, some predecessor of the ancient Egyptians teamed together to cut and lift the stones using simple tools, ropes and winches.

The pyramids must in other words be much older than the current 4000 year estimate if we are to stay with the assumption that only primitive tools were used to build them.

Kheops-Pyramid.jpg

By Nina - Own work, CC BY 2.5, Link

The Monument on Top of Nimrod's Mountain

Just up the road from Göbekli Tepe, we find Mount Nemrut, known in ancient times as Nimrod's Mountain.

On top of this mountain stand a series of large stone figures, all beheaded. Their heads can be found ceremoniously laid out, right side up, at a distance from their bodies, many of them with their noses cut off.

Behind the statues is a large pyramid shaped heap of rubble, clearly covering something up. From the look of it, the same people who covered up Göbekli Tepe, covered up the monument at Mount Nemrut too.

Whoever did the covering up had habits very reminiscent of those practiced by certain religious zealots even today. Chopping off heads and cutting off noses is still practiced by such people. The sight of something superior to their own limited capabilities seem to infuriate them to the point that they just have to either destroy it or cover it up.

What was covered up by the savages was clearly far beyond what they could produce. Unable to destroy it, or take it apart, beyond chopping off a few heads, they found it more practical to heap enormous amounts of rubble on top of the monuments.

Sunday, July 23, 2017

What Meteorite Craters and Valles Marineris have in Common

Standard textbook astronomy will tell us that meteorites that strike our planet are remnants of fairly large meteoroids. Small meteoroids burn up in the atmosphere. Larger ones survive and strike our planet. The small ones are shooting stars that burn up completely. The large ones are shooting stars too, but big enough to survive.

However, if this is true, why is it that unusually large meteoroids have a tendency to explode before they hit the ground? The Tanguska event was by all accounts a large meteoroid. The Chelyabinsk event, famously documented by dash-cams on February 15 2013, was also a large meteoroid. In both cases, the meteoroids exploded in the air before impact.

While the large ones explode from internal stress, the smaller ones slow down due to air resistance, discharge its excess charge into the atmosphere, and might not even glow as it falls to Earth.

Large meteoroids do not have increased chances of hitting our planet. Rather, the opposite is the case. The larger a meteoroid is, the less likely it is to hit Earth. They explode before impact.

This is why all so called impact craters on Earth are completely circular. They are caused by a tremendous explosion at low altitude. Had they been due to a kinetic impact, they would not be round but oblong, with an uneven rim, low at the point where the meteoroid entered and high at the end it was moving towards. To verify this, simply toss an iron ball into a sand pit. The mark will only be perfectly round if it was dropped straight from above.

Instead of oblong, impact craters are all circular. They also show sign of electrical activity. There is often a raised center, and irregular scarring in and around the crater.

What happens when a large meteoroid comes into close contact with Earth is that our planet seeks to equalize its charge with that of the meteoroid, and the meteoroid gets completely obliterated in the process. The force of the explosion depends on the size of the meteoroid. Very big meteoroids result in visible craters.

This process of obliterating meteoroids before impact is not unique to Earth. This happens on our Moon as well. However, having no atmosphere in which to burn meteoroids at a far distance from its surface, even the smallest meteoroids get zapped at close range, and so our Moon gets littered with circular craters.

Some lunar craters may not be impact craters, but the result of electrical whirlwinds in which bits of charged dust circle around an exit point before heading out to space. Over time, this process can create circular marks. However, this does not diminish the fact that meteoroids almost always explode before impact. There are no sign of direct impact of large meteoroids on Earth, and very few signs of direct impacts on the Moon.

Interestingly enough, an experiment performed by NASA goes a long way in confirming the electrical explosion theory. On July 4 2005, NASA's Deep Impact spacecraft successfully struck a comet with a copper plated impactor. What is rarely mentioned is that there was a flash detected before the subsequent flash of the impact. The copper plate did not get obliterated, but that is probably entirely due to the fact that it was striking a comet and not a planet or moon.

At some point an object gets so large that it does not get obliterated, so could a comet or a rogue moon or planet strike our planet directly?

As it happens, there is some evidence to suggest that a close encounter between Earth and a very large object has happened in a not too distant past. The result was not an impact crater but a scar.

The Grand Canyon looks like it may have been created from a discharge between our planet and a large object in close proximity. There is even a round exit shape at the bottom right hand corner of the pictures taken from space. This is where the discharge lingered as the large object headed back out into space.

More dramatically and easily recognizable is the famous scar on Mars. Valles Marineris has a round entry shape and a round exit shape at either end, and it is at its broadest in the middle where the distance between Mars and the intruder was at its smallest.

Both the Grand Canyon and Valles Marineris have the irregular markings of electrical discharge. But Valles Marineris is straighter and deeper. The encounter must have been very close.

Valles Marineris and Grand Canyon are example of what happens when very large bodies come in close contact with each other. Instead of a single flash, there is a continuous flash. There is not a single sharp explosion. There is a long continuous explosion. In both cases, there are enormous repelling forces in action, and herein lies the answer to the above question.

Large objects are extremely unlikely to collide. Even if they were to come into close contact, there would be a strong repelling discharge between the two. Additionally, most electrical theories of gravity predict a repelling gravitational force between large objects in close proximity.

Large objects don't collide. They glide past each other, exchanging violent discharges in the process.

Mars Valles Marineris.jpeg
Mars

By NASA / USGS (see PIA04304 catalog page) - http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/photo_gallery/photogallery-mars.html http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/planetary/mars/marsglobe1.jpg, Public Domain, Link

Lifting and Pulling Stones in Ancient Egypt

When looking at the records that the ancient Egyptians themselves left behind, there is no evidence of any high tech building techniques. What is depicted are people lifting and pulling rocks with surprising ease. The images are surreal in the way they portray people lifting big rocks onto their shoulders. A thin stick appears to be all that is required to lift two big stones. No bending of the knees was required to lift the stones from the ground. To make it all even more absurd, the people doing the lifting appear to have been giants.

Kheops-Pyramid.jpg
Kheops pyramid

By Nina - Own work, CC BY 2.5, Link

Were Abandoned Monoliths Merely Bad Production Runs?

If the production of monoliths was fairly easy in ancient times, abandoned monoliths, such as the ones at Baalbek, might have been nothing more dramatic than bad production runs that were discarded in favor of starting over again.

The old monoliths were abandoned and ignored as the workers went on to cut new ones. Only many generations later, when gravity had increased and the rocks at Baalbeck had become much harder, did the abandoned monoliths attract the attention and awe of visitors.

If so, there never was a dramatic change in gravity, nor a sudden hardening of rocks. The changes happened fairly slowly, over generations, as evident at Göbekli Tepe.

Tower of Babel was Made of Bricks and Slime

According to the Bible, the Tower of Babel was made of Bricks and Slime. The engineers responsible for the building project were clearly in favor of using malleable, even liquid, building materials.

Pieter Bruegel the Elder - The Tower of Babel (Vienna) - Google Art Project - edited.jpg

By Pieter Bruegel the Elder - Levels adjusted from File:Pieter_Bruegel_the_Elder_-_The_Tower_of_Babel_(Vienna)_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg, originally from Google Art Project., Public Domain, Link

Saturday, July 22, 2017

Scoops of Rock and the Expanding Seafloor

The mystery of ancient buildings, and abandoned quarries with enormous monoliths, can only be explained in two ways. Either man possessed technologies in the past that has been forgotten over time, or the environment in which we live has changed.

If we had technologies in the past that we have forgotten, then it is curious that this loss of knowledge has sometimes been slow as is evident at Göbekli Tepe, and sometimes rapid as is evident from Baalbek Quarry. Why would something as simple as cutting stone and putting them on top of each other be sometimes slowly forgotten, and at other times forgotten practically over night?

The alternative to a loss of technology would be a change in the environment in which three things happened:
  1. Everything became heavier over time
  2. Silicon compounds became harder and stronger
  3. Carbon compounds became softer and weaker
To explain the sudden change in environment evident at the Baalbek Quarry, the three changes would have had to happen simultaneously, presumably due to a single unifying cause. My favorite candidate is the mass condensation hypothesis proposed by Halton Arp. However, there might be better candidates. The precise mechanism is not important for this blog post.

What is important to note is that every single architectural wonder of the ancient world becomes far less mysterious once the above three points are accepted. Read any article, or watch any video, on the mysteries of ancient architecture with the above list in mind, and everything becomes readily understood.

Case in point is this article in which the author highlights some very interesting observations regarding the way quarries were worked in ancient times. Evidence suggests that rock was scooped out of quarries with spoon like tools, the size of present day spades. Such marks can be seen in ancient quarries all over the world.

Notice that the argument for a lost technology is that the rock is too hard and strong for bronze or wood tools. However, some rocks may have changed radically in their strength over time. The favorite rocks of ancient builders may have been relatively soft in their time.

The actual digging appears to be manual. There was nothing high tech about the way the work was done. The only puzzle is the size of the rocks and their apparent softness, so why not suggest that the stones were both lighter and softer in the past? The spades may have been made of wood and the rock was simply dug out in much the same way we dig out clay today.

Looking at the rocks that were put together by the Incas to create their earthquake resistant buildings, it is almost as if the rocks were still in a soft state when they were put into place. A lump of clay-like rock was put into place on top of other lumps that had hardened in the sun and the wind. Once hardened, another lump of clay-like rock was put next to it.

If this was how things were done in the ancient past, then there must have been an abundance of malleable rocks just beneath the hard crust of mountains. Once the hard crust was cracked, the rest was pretty straight forward digging.

I'm not proposing that all rocks were soft as clay in ancient times, but all rocks were softer than they are today, and some rocks were in this clay-like condition. The farther back we go in time, the softer and more malleable were the rocks.

An interesting thing to note regarding this hypothesis is that the expansion of our planet appears to have been by stretching rather than cracking during the first 140 million years. Earth appears to have expanded by a very large percent without cracking. Only 60 million years ago, when the dinosaurs finally went extinct did the crust of our planet crack.

This is evident by studying maps of Earth's seafloor. The oldest seafloors, close to continents and away from the ridges, are clearly created by a plastic expansion. Under the hard crust lay an elastic layer. This is particularly evident for Micronesia, east of Asia, and for Madagascar east of Africa.

The relatively recent mid ocean ridges, which are cracks in the crust of our planet, have been attributed to the fact that the expansion appears to be accelerating. However, it could just as well be due to the fact that our planet has become harder and more rigid so that the stretching that was possible in the distant past is no longer possible.

Earth expansion seen from the south pole
Earth expansion seen from the south pole

Friday, July 21, 2017

The Bone Structure of Neolithic Man

In my blog post on Göbekli Tepe and Other Mysteries I pointed out that the monolith at Baalbek was so large that it had to have been a lot less massive when it was carved out if the craftsmen cutting it were to transport it using only ropes and winches.

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.JPG

Columbian mammoth 

By CC BY WolfmanSF - Own work -SA 3.0, Link

Göbekli Tepe and Other Mysteries

When it comes to lost ancient technologies, there are two things that are immediately apparent to even the casual student of history. Ancient people were able to assemble huge rocks into enormous buildings. They were also able to cut into rocks with apparent ease.

On closer inspection, there is also some evidence that the ancients knew a thing or two about electricity. A modern electric lighting device can be seen depicted in the Hathor temple in Egypt.

This has led many to believe that the ancients knew a lot of things that we have yet to rediscover. Some ancient knowledge has been lost to us.

If the image depicted in the Hathor temple really is an electrical lamp, then it is clear that some ancient knowledge has indeed been lost, only to be recently rediscovered. However, the Egyptian lighting device appears to have held some sacred function. Its assembly and operation was not know to the average craftsman. It could therefore be easily forgotten.

What could not be equally easily forgotten is something as mundane as the cutting and assembly of rocks. This required a lot of craftsmen, and was probably a fairly routine job. Why would this suddenly be forgotten? Even if there was a cataclysmic event, wouldn't the craftsmen have taken their tools with them to assemble houses and temples somewhere else? Wouldn't they tell their children how to use the tools? And why haven't we found the remnants of a single high tech device abandoned in the quarries? All we can find are tools made of stone, bronze and iron, with stone tools being the oldest and iron tools being the newest. This is proof of technological advancement, not decay.

What we see, is that tools used by craftsmen improve over time, while the buildings that they assembled became smaller and less elaborately decorated. This is particularly evident in places where new buildings have been erected on top of or in the vicinity of older ones.

The Roman Temple at Baalbek, Lebanon, was built on the foundations of an older structure. The older structure consists of much larger stones than the newer one. The same is evident at Göbekli Tepe in Turkey, an ancient Neolithic site that saw more or less continuous building activity for thousands of years.

What is particularly interesting about Göbekli Tepe is that there is evidence of a slow decay in their architecture. The older buildings are larger and more elaborately adorned than the younger ones. It is as if the people of Göbekli Tepe were suffering from some sort of slow collective Alzheimer. Alternatively, both gravity and the hardness of rocks have increased over time.

If gravity and the hardness of rocks have increased over time due to Halton Arp's mass condensation, then Göbekli Tepe becomes a lot less mysterious. It would also solve another and much more resent mystery.

The concrete used by Romans in their buildings is far harder and stronger than concrete used today. It is as if the Romans knew something about concrete that has been forgotten today. The alternative would be that their concrete has somehow hardened additionally over time. Could it be that Roman concrete and rocks have all become harder? It certainly appears to be the case.

What's more, it appears that the process of hardening has gone hand in hand with the process of becoming heavier, and there is evidence to suggest that the process has been at times very rapid.

Back in Baalbek, there is a nearby quarry with a huge megalithic rock, cut and ready for transportation. Someone went to the trouble of cutting it. Yet, it lies abandoned on the grounds. Why?

Could it be that the rock quite suddenly became much more heavy so that it could no longer be transported? If so, why not simply cut it in half and transport it in parts? Alternatively, slice it into numerous smaller bits and sell it to other customers. Could it be that the monolith became harder at the very same time that it became heavier so that they could neither transport it nor cut it? It certainly appears so.

The last of the Woolly Mammoths went extinct a mere four thousand years ago. This event appears to have been very sudden. Could it be that the Monolith at Baalbek was being cut at the same time that the Mammoths went extinct? Are the two mysteries directly related to a single event?

If so, that event would most likely be a nearby supernova. The gamma ray flash of such an event would have resulted in a huge production of electron positron pairs inside of matter. Atomic nuclei particularly ripe for mass condensation would have been able to accumulate mass at an alarming rate.

From the looks of it, silicates of various types appear to have been particularly susceptible to mass condensation. The monolith of Baalbek is not just a little bigger than what we would consider a reasonably sized rock today. It is a giant. It must have weighed a lot less in ancient times if all they had to move it was rollers, ropes and winches.

Note that bones are silicates too. They would have become stronger, but also heavier. Animals with heavy bone structures, like the Mammoth would have undergone a strange transformation. While their bone structures would be able to resist fracture through the transformation, the muscles would suddenly be wholly inadequate to move them. Just like the workers in Baalbek discovered that they no longer had the muscle capacity to move the monolith that they had cut, the Mammoth's were suddenly unable to carry their own weight. They collapsed and died pretty much instantaneously.

But what about the electric lighting in Egypt? Was that forgotten and abandoned for some unrelated reason, or could this too be a technology that suddenly stopped working?

As mentioned above, the knowledge of the electric lighting, if it ever existed, was in few hands. It would not have taken a great catastrophe to have wiped it from our collective memory. However, it is not totally unreasonable to think that the mechanism used to produce electricity may have suddenly stopped working too. Some clever trick to produce electricity from the atmosphere or through chemical reactions may have been affected in a way related to how silicates became heavier. Unable to find a substitute power source, the device was abandoned and eventually forgotten.

In our modern world, we use all sorts of instruments that are truly mysterious and magical to the average person. We have i-pads, smart phones and digital watches. It is easy to imagine this knowledge suddenly lost through some catastrophic cataclysm. However, building techniques are not and have never been considered high tech. No cataclysm could wipe out our memory of how we build houses.

This suggests to us that it is the environment of the ancient craftsman that underwent a change over time. The technology used by the craftsmen became gradually less efficient. Mostly, the change was slow and imperceptible to the average person. However, every now and again, the change was rapid and dramatic. There was a flash in the sky, and suddenly a lot of things changed.

Thursday, July 20, 2017

Lost Ancient Technologies

In my blog post on King Solomon's Temple and Other Large Buildings, I promoted the idea that buildings were made from larger blocks of stone in ancient times than during more recent times because gravity was less in the distant past. The technology used to build ancient buildings was precisely the same as that used in more recent times. They lifted things using ropes and winches. However, with less gravity, they could lift larger blocks of rock than what was possible closer to our own time.

Once we accept the idea that gravity was less, the size of the rocks used to build ancient buildings and monuments become less mysterious. There is no need to believe that the ancients knew something that we don't know today.

However, there is a second mystery related to ancient buildings and stone carvings. The precision and apparent ease with which rocks were cut is at times quite baffling. It is as if hard rocks like granite were mere clay to the craftsmen. Again, we are faced with a mystery in which some ancient technology has been lost. But maybe this too can be explained by a change in the physical environment in which the ancients lived.

If gravity has increased due to mass condensation, then there might have been a change in the relative hardness of materials as a direct consequence. Metal tools may have been relatively much harder than rock back in ancient times. Where we need a diamond saw to cut through rock today, applying pressure with a bronze knife might have been enough in the past?

Bronze age weapons Romania.jpg

By Work of Romanian goverment 
Public Domain, Link

The hardness of a mineral is determined by the strength of bonds and the structure of the mineral lattice. This is an electrical property. If the nuclei of atoms have increased in mass by accumulating charged quanta, it requires no big stretch of the imagination to think that the strength of chemical bonds may have changed too.

The mysterious loss of technology may in fact have been entirely due to a change in environment, both gravitational and chemical. Technologies that used to work fine, simply stopped working.

Wednesday, July 19, 2017

Radioactive Astronauts

If Halton Arp is correct about mass condensing onto existing matter, then we can assume that the process might be reversible. Instead of matter gaining mass through the absorption of electron positron pairs, produced from gamma rays, matter can loose mass by ejecting electron positron pair which in turn annihilate, producing gamma rays.

The direction of the process is presumably determined by the environment in which the matter in question resides.

Imagine then a group of astronauts moving from a region of space in which matter is heavy, into a region where matter is light. The environment of the astronauts changes, and they becomes radioactive. The matter that makes up the space ship and the astronauts loose electron positron pairs, possibly at an alarming rate. There are gamma rays everywhere, and there is no way to shield the astronauts or the spaceship because the sources of the radiation are themselves.

Halton Arp and Orbits

If Halton Arp is correct about mass condensation, a whole range of interesting possibilities open up with respect to orbits.

Orbits can go from relatively close to wide depending on the exact pattern of condensation over time. The distribution of mass condensation through galaxies can explain their peculiar pattern of rotation.

The extinction of the Mammoths may have coincided with a widening of the planetary orbits around the sun. Our moon may be receding from us due to its pattern of mass condensation.

In Halton Arp's universe orbits are more fluid and less predictable. Although always conforming to Newton's law of gravity, the fact that mass no longer is a constant, and we have no idea exactly how, where or when mass condensation may occur, orbits are no longer as clockwork as Newton liked to believe.
Opposing forces yielding stable orbits
Opposing forces yielding stable orbits

Tuesday, July 18, 2017

The Relationship Between Gravity and Inertia

From studying the Quetzalcoatlus, it is clear that both gravity and inertia must have increased since the time when this dinosaur dominated the skies. For present day gravity and inertia, it was way too big to fly, and its head was way too large for its neck.

This rhymes well with Halton Arp's intrinsic red-shift hypothesis in which he suggests that mass (shorthand for inertia and gravity) is something that increases over time through a process of condensation of mass onto existing matter.

By combining Halton Arp's hypothesis with Morton Spears' simple model of the atom (chapter 8 of his book), we find a mechanism in which mass can be condensed onto protons and neutrons through absorption of electron positron pairs created by high energy photons.

Taken all together, we get an explanation for the increase in both gravity and inertia over time. However, one problem remains. There does not seem to be enough high energy photons to account for the increase in mass.

The main objection to the mass accumulation model for the expanding Earth has always been that there simply isn't enough matter and/or radiation to account for the increase in gravity. This is why Peter Woodhead came to the conclusion that Earth is expanding due to internal pressures.

For Peter Woodhead's theory to work, some tweaking to Newton's formula was required, so I came up with a capacitor model of gravity in which I proposed an electrical model with the following two main features:
  1. gravity is a dipole
  2. gravity attracts inertia universally with both poles
Such a model would result in a hollow planet that conforms exactly with Newton's formula for all cases except when two large bodies come into close proximity with each other.

What is important to note here is that gravity and inertia are treated as two distinct things. I have later formalized this as follows:
Charged quanta interacting with each other to form matter produce inertia and gravity in much the same way charge quanta in free motion produce electric current and magnetism.
If this is correct, the relationship between inertia and gravity may not be linear. Gravity may increase exponentially with mass condensation, while inertia increases linearly. If so, there is no longer any lack of radiation to explain the increase in gravity. The condensation that produces a small increase in inertia may well produce a large increase in gravity.

This is exactly what Newton predicts with his formula:
F = GM1M2/r^2.
If both M1 and M2 increase, the resulting increase in gravity is not additive, but exponential.

The equivalent formula for gravity based on the capacitor model is
F = GM(q1)M(q2)/r^2 - GM(q1)M(q2)/r^3
where
G is Newton's universal constant
M() is a function that produces mass from charged quanta
q1 is the charged quanta of body 1
q2 is the charged quanta of body 2
r is the distance between the geometrical centers of the two bodies  
The positive term expresses the long range attracting force and the negative term expresses the short range repelling force.

(I have since come to realize that the repelling force is in fact the electrostatic force, so stability of orbits can be expressed without a special short range repelling force, as explained here.)

This again leads us to the conclusion that all heavenly bodies are hollow and that their gravity increase over time. The increase in gravity adds to the internal pressure of such bodies, causing them eventually to crack and expand.


Earth expansion seen from the south pole. All oceans are rifts.