Vulcan and the Mercury Anomaly

Mercury makes its rounds around the Sun a little faster than predicted by Newton, and this has been a subject for debate in astronomy ever since this was discovered. However, the debate is currently considered settled by Einstein, who demonstrated that a curved space-time could account for the observed fact. But this doesn't mean that there are no alternative explanations.

Alternative explanations

I've presented two possible alternatives in my book, and Dr. Robitaille, who's an expert on astrophysics, has come up with an elegant take on the phenomenon that doesn't invoke anything outside of standard Newtonian mechanics.

Dr. Robitaille starts off by mentioning the hypothetical planet Vulcan that was proposed as a first attempt at explaining the anomaly back in the nineteenth century. The idea was that if there was a planet orbiting between Mercury and the Sun, this planet would pull Mercury with it, thereby speeding it up ever so slightly. However, the planet was never found, and the idea was abandoned.

But if the Sun has a blob inside of it so that the center of gravity is a little skewed we'll get the same effect. The blob rotates with the Sun, and whenever it passes Mercury, it gives Mercury a little tug. Vulcan may in other words exist, but as a blob inside our Sun rather than a planet orbiting it.

Jupiter's Red Spot

An interesting aspect of Dr. Robitaille's proposed blob is its similarity to Jupiter's Red Spot, because the Red Spot is in fact a blob. It has been measured to be gravitationally stronger than its surroundings. It stands taller than the surrounding atmosphere, and it's becoming more circular and compact.

However, the Vulcan blob is not visible at the surface of the Sun. If it exists, it's located somewhere below the Sun's surface. But apart from that, the blob and the Red Spot have a lot in common, so if the Red Spot is an embryonic moon of Jupiter, could it be that the Vulcan blob is an embryonic planet that might one day be ejected by the Sun?

Jupiter ejecting a moon

The Cosmic Microwave Background

The Cosmic Microwave Background is an ubiquitous background radiation of the universe, viewed by astronomers as strong evidence in support of the Big Bang. However, the evidence is not as conclusive as many make it out to be, and Dr. Pierre-Marie Robitaille explains why this is so in his series of lectures on the subject.

Redshift

First off, we need to consider the phenomenon of redshift, and how it is interpreted, because it is the redshift in the microwave background that gives us reasons to believe that the observed signal is the afterglow of the Big Bang.

The way redshift is detected is that molecules that occupy a space between a light source and an observer show up as lines in the observer's light specter. Every molecule has its own signature of lines, and these lines belong to specific frequency ranges. When such lines appear out of place relative to where they should have been, we have either blueshift or redshift, depending on whether the signal is bluer or redder than expected.

In the case of the microwave background, the redshift constitutes a shift from visible light to microwave. That's an enormous shift. Furthermore, the redshift is identical wherever we look.

One event or multiple events

From the way the data is presented, it looks like the microwave background is the result of a single event, because multiple events would give different redshift signals depending on where they happened. It also looks like the event was extreme, like a big explosion.

However, Dr. Robitaille is far from convinced that we have in fact observed a nice sharp redshift footprint in the microwave background. He points out weaknesses in the methods used. Instead of a single event, it appears that we're dealing with a lot of different events who's signals average out to something sharp and greatly redshifted.

What these events have in common is that they appear to be distant. But this can be explained by the fact that the farther out we look, the more of the universe we see. At the very limit of the observable universe, we see a huge number of stars for every arch second of sky, and it speaks for itself that this region must generate an almost uniform background signal.

The microwave background is in other words likely to be the glow of distant stars.

Relative to this, all other explanations come across as contrived. Why invoke a Big Bang, when everybody knows that stars generate heat?

Proton decay

My proposed alternative explanation to the Big Bang is also contrived when viewed in this perspective. But I will give it a mention nevertheless, because a balanced universe requires a mechanism known as proton decay for things to balance out, and this will generate heat.

If matter becomes heavier over time, as proposed by Halton Arp, it must eventually evaporate back into radiation for our universe to be both balanced and eternal. There must be a limit to how heavy protons can become before they decay, and once decay sets in, it must be irreversible.

If we assume that matter is created in the hot centers of galaxies, we can equally assume that protons decay at the dark edges of these same galaxies. Every galaxy would therefore be surrounded by a faint glow at low energy levels. With galaxies everywhere around us in the universe, we'd get a uniform background radiation.

Assuming further that protons decay into photons and light weight hydrogen, possibly with some helium as well, we get an explanation for the observed redshift in the hydrogen and helium specters as well.

EM Spectrum Properties

By Inductiveload, NASA - self-made, information by NASABased off of File:EM Spectrum3-new.jpg by NASAThe butterfly icon is from the P icon set, File:P biology.svg The humans are from the Pioneer plaque, File:Human.svg The buildings are the Petronas towers and the Empire State Buildings, both from File:Skyscrapercompare.svg, CC BY-SA 3.0, Link

The Balanced Universe

The universe is by definition a closed system with no outside mechanism to drive it. This means that every mechanism in the universe will have to have some reverse mechanism for it to persist. Otherwise, it will burn itself out and die.

An eternal universe must additionally have a fixed size, or one that pulsates, sometimes expanding and sometimes contracting. If it shrinks to nothing, it's dead, and if it expands for ever, it can also be considered dead.

However, we cannot simply declare our universe to be eternal. We have to present plausible mechanisms that will prevent it from dying.

A fixed size universe

In a model where gravity is the only force of any significance, we cannot very easily argue for a fixed size universe. It's pretty much impossible for a gravity only universe to balance out. It must either expand into oblivion or it will collapse. Even if it expands ever more slowly so that it never exceeds a size limit, bits of it will collapse from time to time until it's all dead.

However, we don't live in a gravity only universe. There are electric currents flowing through space in the form of plasma. Space is full of electric and magnetic forces that can counteract gravity. These forces make orbits stable, and prevent planets, stars and galaxies from colliding catastrophically. Once this is taken into account, the argument for a fixed size and eternal universe becomes stronger.

Heating and cooling

When we look at our Sun in isolation, we're amazed by the amount of heat it generates. It's tempting to conclude that it must possess a powerful internal furnace, and with billions of stars in our galaxy alone, the cosmos must heat up rapidly.

However, when we consider our Sun in a wider context, we see that it may for the most part be externally driven by plasma flows between stars. If so, little extra energy is required in order to account for the Sun's impressive amount of heat.

If stars are hot primarily due to external factors, there's no reason to think that a fixed size cosmos will heat up quickly. But there will be heating over time, so there is a need for a reverse process from the one going on at the surface of stars. We need a mechanism that can suck energy out of the cosmos, and our prime candidate for this are supernovas because they are known to produce a lot of heavy elements. Despite their brightness, they do in fact consume more energy than they produce.

With a model in which stars produce energy through fission and supernovas consume energy through fusion, we have a balance in which a fixed size universe will remain at a steady overall temperature.

Lifecycle of matter

Halton Arp noted in his time that matter itself age over time. Matter starts off with small protons that grow bigger and heavier over time. This too needs to be balanced with a reverse process. Otherwise, we get an aging universe with matter never returning to its initial youthful lightness.

To solve this problem, I've proposed that there's a limit to how heavy protons can become, and that they will evaporate into positrons, electrons and photons once this limit is reached. This radiation can in turn be used to produce new lightweight matter.

The universe can thus be sustained indefinitely in a balanced fashion, with some regions young, and other regions old and dying.

Life

It should be noted that the death of matter doesn't mean the death of life, because life uses whatever materials there are in its vicinity to reproduce. If life finds ways to move out of old, dying regions of space and into newer regions, life can persist for eternity, and it seems likely that this is in fact how things work. Microorganisms can traverse space randomly, and highly intelligent lifeforms find ways to cross the voids of space from dying regions to younger regions.

It's therefore reasonable to believe that our universe is a huge thriving ecosystem teeming with life.

By NASA, ESA, and the Hubble SM4 ERO Team - http://www.hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2009/25/image/e/, Public Domain, Link

Transmutations on the Electric Sun

Having demonstrated that transmutations can explain both fossilization and processes going on inside our bodies we can go on to consider our Sun and what sort of transmutations it may be engaging in.

The electric Sun

First off, we need to understand the mechanisms driving the Sun itself. The standard model of the Sun is that it is a ball of gas, fueled by an internal fusion reactor that turns Hydrogen into Helium. However, this does not fit well with observations, and this has led some to suggest that the Sun is not a nuclear reactor but an externally driven electric furnace. Additionally, I've proposed that this furnace generates more energy than it consumes. Nuclear processes taking place on the surfaces of stars function as electric accelerators.

A suitable model of our Sun is not the ball of Hydrogen gas that current theory suggests, but an object made out of pretty much the same materials as everything else in our solar system, namely rocks and gases of various kinds. The abundance of Hydrogen seen in the light spectra of our Sun is not indicative of its makeup. Rather, it's due to Hydrogen being split off of heavier elements at its surface through nuclear fission.

This process is not unique to our Sun. It takes place on all stars, and this is why we see so much Hydrogen, Helium and other light elements in space and the corona of our Sun and other stars. The abundance of light elements in space is not a reflection of the overall makeup of our universe, but simply a consequence of the nuclear processes taking place on stars.

Interstellar currents

Note that the energy generated by transmutations of elements on the surface of stars don't have to account for more than a fraction of their energy outputs because stars are primarily electric furnaces. The nuclear reactions taking place are merely maintaining and adding to the interstellar engine of electric currents that drive all stars.

The energy supposedly lost to space through radiation is in the form of charged gases known as plasma, and plasma will always merge and converge onto nearby stars and planets. The energy blasted out into space by our Sun and stars is focused onto other stars and reused.

Little extra energy is required for this to persist, which means that stars can exist for a very long time without running out of fuel.

Transmutations

As for the transmutations taking place on the surface of stars, we have a few general rules we can apply. For one, the overall process must be exothermic. Heat is generated, not consumed. Furthermore, the transmutations are mostly due to fission of Hydrogen and Helium. All sorts of other transmutations may also take place, but the abundance of Hydrogen and Helium in the coronas of stars tell us that fission is the main driver.

When we combine these observations with the periodic table, and the fact that planets like Earth are especially rich in Silicon and Iron, we find four candidates for what may be the dominant transmutations that take place on stars. They are:

• Silicon (Si) - Hydrogen (H) = Aluminum (Al) + Energy
• Silicon (Si) - Helium (He) = Magnesium (Mg) + Energy
• Iron (Fe) - Hydrogen (H) = Manganese (Mn) + Energy
• Iron (Fe) - Helium (He) = Chromium (Cr) + Energy

Calculations

Using atomic weights found in the periodic table to calculate the energy produced by each of these processes we get the following.

For Si - H = Al + Energy we get:

• Energy = Si - Al - H
• Energy = 28.085 - 26.982 - 1.008
• Energy = 0.095

For Si - He = Mg + Energy we get:

• Energy = Si - Mg - He
• Energy = 28.085 - 24.305 - 4.003
• Energy = -0.223

For Fe - H = Mn + Energy we get:

• Energy = Fe - Mn - H
• Energy = 55.845 - 54.938 - 1.008
• Energy = -0.101

For Fe - He = Cr + Energy we get:

• Energy = Fe - Cr - He
• Energy = 55.845 - 51.996 - 4.003
• Energy = -0.154

Conclusion

From the above calculations we get that only the Silicon to Aluminum transmutation is exothermic. It's the only one that produces energy, and therefore the only one in this list that is happening at any significant rate.

However, this is not to say that Silicon to Aluminum transmutation is the only transmutation taking place on our Sun. Iron may still play an important role because it will release a lot of energy if split into Silicon and Magnesium. Silicon can then in turn split off a hydrogen atom to produce Aluminum, and Magnesium can also shed Hydrogen, as can Aluminum. Long chains of reactions are possible.

When more complex transmutation sequences are considered, we get a long list of possibilities. But if we restrict ourselves to abundant elements found on Earth, and focus on splitting off Hydrogen and Helium from these elements, the list becomes short, and we can conclude that the dominant transmutation taking place on the Sun is that of Silicon to Aluminum, with Hydrogen released into the chromosphere and corona.

Sun's corona and chromosphere during a solar eclipse

By Luc Viatour, CC BY-SA 3.0, Link

Calculations Related to Transmutations

Doing the numbers on Sodium to Potassium transmutations, we were able to demonstrate that this type of transmutation only requires the addition of oxygen, and that the process is endothermic. It results in a cooling effect, and can therefore explain how humans and other large animals can remain temperature steady in sweltering heat when perspiration on its own seems insufficient relative to the enormous task of keeping a large body at a lower temperature.

It appears then that the human body is capable of Sodium to Potassium transmutations, and that this is key to keeping our bodies cool during hot weather. Salt is not only needed for perspiration. It is also needed for the transmutation of Sodium into Potassium, and this is the reason we excrete more Potassium than we consume, and we consume more Sodium than we excrete.

Fossilization

Another type of transmutation that appears to be fairly common in nature is fossilization of animals, plants, clay and mud. These cases too deserve to be investigated in greater details.

Mud, a mix of mainly Silicon and Carbon, is known to transform into shale and mudstone over time. It can also be formed into bricks by applying heat, or simply by letting it dry in the sun.

Clay is better defined than mud, and is a widely used material, known to become hard when heated. Pure clay minerals even have a precise chemical definition, namely Al2Si2O5(OH)4. It's a mix of Aluminum, Silicon, Oxygen and Hydrogen. Regular clay, found in nature, also contains a lot of Iron, hence its red color.

Plants, as we all know, are mainly made up of water and Carbon, and animals are mainly water, Carbon and Calcium.

With this in mind we see that a transformation of mud and clay into rock appears straight forward, while a transformation from plants and animals into rock seems more elaborate. However, even mud and clay seem to require at least some transformation at the atomic level.

Sedimentary rocks are not bricks and pottery made by nature over time. They are not merely transformed by heat. Rather, they appear transmuted into Silicon, either quickly by lightning or slowly over time by radiation coming from the Sun and the cosmos.

Let us therefore look at the transmutations that are possible, and the energies required to make them happen.

Transmutations

Fossils are known to contain more Silicon than what was present before fossilization took place, so we have Silicon as the main end product we are looking to explain. There's also an abundance of manganese oxide at the surface of fossilized bones that needs explaining.

For all the elements available to us we have:

• Hydrogen - symbol H, number 1, weight 1.008
• Carbon - symbol C, number 6, weight 12.011
• Oxygen - symbol O, number 8, weight 15.999
• Magnesium - symbol Mg, number 12, weight 24.305
• Aluminum - symbol Al, number 13, weight 26.982
• Silicon - symbol C, number 14, weight 28.085
• Calcium - symbol Ca, number 20, weight 40.078
• Iron - symbol Fe, number 26, weight 55.845

From this we get a lot of straight forward possibilities for transmutation into Silicon. Restricting ourselves to only consider processes involving two elements, we get the following:

• H + Al = Si + Energy
• C + O = Si + Energy
• Ca - C = Si + Energy
• Fe - Mg = Si + Energy

We have four direct routes to Silicon, which helps us explain the first puzzle, namely the abundance of Silicon in fossilized remains.

Note that if the energy produced is positive, we have an exothermic reaction. If it's negative, we have an endothermic reaction.

Note also, that Iron transmuted into Silicon also produces Magnesium, which we find in abundance around fossilized bones.

Calcium transmuted into Silicon produces additional Carbon, but this Carbon can in turn be turned into Silicon in combination with Oxygen, also in plentiful supply inside living creatures.

It appears then that transmutation may be a major factor in the production of fossilized remains.

Required energies

Moving on to the atomic weights of the various elements, we can calculate the energies involved in the above mentioned transmutations. If we get energies above the weight of a Hydrogen atom, we have to assume that one or more neutron were involved, either ejected in the case of an exothermic reaction or synthesized in the case of an endothermic reaction.

Starting with H + Al = Si + Energy, we get:

• Energy = H + Al - Si
• Energy = 1.008 + 26.982 - 28.085
• Energy = -0.095

C + O = Si + Energy gives us:

• Energy = C + O - Si
• Energy = 12.011 + 15.999 - 28.085
• Energy = -0.075

Ca - C = Si + Energy gives us:

• Energy = Ca - C - Si
• Energy = 40.078 - 12.011 - 28.085
• Energy = -0.018

Fe - Mg = Si + Energy gives us:

• Energy = Fe - Mg - Si
• Energy = 55.845 - 24.305 - 28.085
• Energy = 3.455

The odd one out here is clearly the Iron to Silicon transmutation which produces energy to the tune of three and a half Hydrogen atoms. By contrast, the three other reactions consume energy, and only a tiny bit of it, which means that the energy released by the production of Silicon and Magnesium from Iron can feed the other three processes. There's a synergy of sorts working in our favor.

Considering the complexities related to alternative explanations, where elements are replaced over time rather than transmuted, I'd say we've made a pretty good case for transmutation as an important factor in fossilization.

Lightning

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

The Sumerian Black Sun

The Sumerians had a seven day week with the first day dedicated to the Sun and last day dedicated to what they referred to as the Black Sun, which is generally believed to have been the planet Saturn.

The Black Sun was only visible during the night, and was described as a ring of light. This fits well with Saturn, as does the fact that our current calendar has Saturn's day, known to us as Saturday, six days after Sunday. However, the Black Sun was said to be larger than the Sun. It was also associated with evil. There was presumably something foreboding about it. That doesn't fit so well with a distant planet associated with wealth and agriculture.

It appears then that the Sumerians observed something in the skies that we rarely or never see nowadays, and this phenomenon may have had some connection to Saturn. When the original phenomenon faded, the secondary effect was brought forward, and we ended up replacing the Black Sun with Saturn in our calendars and myths.

I am of course speculating wildly at this point but there is a phenomenon that fits the bill, and that is the northern lights. This phenomenon is only visible close to our planet's poles these days, but it may have been visible farther to the south in Sumerian times if the Sun was more active back then.

The Sumerians may have noticed a connection between intense northern lights and bad weather, and hence deemed it evil. They may also have noticed some connection between northern lights and the luminosity of Saturn and its rings, and hence made a connection between the Black Sun and Saturn.

While I'm far from certain when it comes to any connection between solar flaring and the luminosity of Saturn, there is a proven connection between cosmic radiation and cloud formation. If we get a prolonged period with above normal radiation of our planet, we'll get more clouds, colder weather and harsher weather. The intensity of the Black Sun would therefore function as a climate forecasting tool for the Sumerians. Should the Black Sun shine bright for many days in a row, bad weather could be expected.

Saturn

By NASA / JPL / Space Science Institute - http://www.ciclops.org/view/5155/Saturn-Four-Years-On http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/365640main_PIA11141_full.jpg http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA11141, Public Domain, Link

Gravity on Mercury

Fossil remains indicate that Earth's surface gravity was about one third of what it is today back in the days of the dinosaurs, and geological analysis of our planet indicate that Earth' diameter has doubled in size since these same dinosaurs were alive.

It appears then that surface gravity on rocky planets like Earth triple in strength when their diameters double due to expansion.

Any rocky planet, half the diameter of Earth, that has undergone little to no expansion, should therefore have a surface gravity roughly one third of what we have here on our planet.

As it turns out, we have a nearby planet that shows few signs of expansion, with half the diameter of Earth, and a geological makeup also similar to our planet, and its surface gravity is in fact roughly one third of what we have here on Earth.

That planet is Mars.

The numbers are as follows.

Relative diameter:

6,779km / 12,742km = 53%

Relative surface gravity:

3.7 / 9.8 = 38%

So far, so good. However, when we do the same calculations for Mercury, we get the following.

Relative diameter:

4,880km / 12,742km = 38%

Relative surface gravity:

3.7 / 9.8 = 38%

In this case, the difference in surface gravity is what we'd expect from Newtonian theory, namely a linear increase with diameter.

Seen from a Newtonian perspective, Mars is the odd one out. It has for some reason a less dense interior than Mercury and Earth. But mainstream science also holds that Earth's core has "puzzling structural complexities". Earth's interior is becoming incredibly complex, especially compared to Jan Lamprecht's model which he developed from the same seismic data.

It may therefore be that it is Mercury that is the odd one out, and not Mars. Mercury may have a smaller hollow at its center than is the case for Mars, and Earth back in the days of the dinosaurs. It may also be that Mercury's proximity to the Sun is making it supercharged due to the photoelectric effect, with this in turn affecting its gravity.

We can only speculate at this point. But there's no need to blindly accept that Earth's interior is mindbogglingly complex, and not relatively uniform throughout, with diminishing density as we get closer to the center, as suggested by Mr. Lamprecht.

Mercury

By NASA/Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory/Arizona State University/Carnegie Institution of Washington - https://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA11364, Public Domain, Link

Black Holes and Unicorns

Dividing a number by zero yields what's known as a mathematical singularity. The result of such a division is not infinite, but undefined. In the context of the real world, the result doesn't exist.

Any theoretical formula about the real world will therefore have to omit any singularities that may arise. One would have to put limits on the proposed formula. Consequently, honest scientists should always look out for singularities in their formulas and point out that their formulas break down at certain values.

Singularities are like red flags. They inform us of boundary conditions. In the context of physics, singularities indicate that there are limits to how dense, hot or otherwise extreme something can become before some fundamental mechanism kicks in to rectify things. That fundamental property is in my opinion the aether which makes space quantized rather than linear.

This means that things do not change in a linear manner when things get extreme. For instance, the electric force becomes suddenly weaker when things get extremely close together. The same goes for gravity. Extremely dense objects stop behaving as expected from linear formulas.

However, all of this is conveniently ignored when it comes to astrophysics.

Black holes, also known as gravitational singularities, have properties that are infinite. They are infinitely dense and infinitely hot. They are in other words physical impossibilities, yet they are presented to us as real.

A reason for this may be that it's fun to talk about impossible things. Just like unicorns, we can all form opinions about them. Some even claim to have seen them, even taken pictures of them. Yet, everyone knows deep down that they don't exist.

A picture of an astronomical unicorn, or something else entirely

By Event Horizon Telescope - https://www.eso.org/public/images/eso1907a/ (image link) The highest-quality image (7416x4320 pixels, TIF, 16-bit, 180 Mb), ESO Article, ESO TIF, CC BY 4.0, Link