Mountain Ranges on an Expanding Earth

If our planet is expanding, then the old continental plates have to constantly break in order to fit onto the expanded globe. This would result in uplifting in the areas where these cracks are formed.

Typical areas where cracks would form would be where landmasses protrude out into the expanding areas and central regions of large continental plates.

Europe is a continent of peninsulas, and is therefore a good example of the first kind of cracks. Italy for instance, protrudes into the Mediterranean Sea, and the crack formed is the Alps. The Iberian peninsula is pushed up relative to France, and the resulting mountain range is the Pyrenees,

Deep into Russia, we find the second kind. The Ural Mountains is the crack that separate Europe from Asia. It was formed as the Eurasian Plate cracked.

The tall mountains of Norway is an example of the third kind. Those mountains were pushed up when the Atlantic Ocean started to form.

The Andes and the Cascade Mountains of South and North America are examples of mountains being pushed up due to the expansion of the Pacific Ocean. These are similar to the mountains found in Norway. However, while the uplifting has long since stopped in Norway, it is ongoing in the Americas.

The Rockies on the other hand were formed where the North American continent cracked. The Rockies are similar to the Ural in that they are inland mountain ranges formed as the large continental plate cracks.

The Himalayas, the huge mountain range that separates the Indian sub-continent from the rest of Asia, were formed in the same way as the Alps and the Pyrenees. The protruding landmass was forced up as the Indian Ocean expanded, and the crack formed where the Himalayas are today.

If we took away the oceans and proceeded to fold back the continents to form a smaller globe, we would find that this could be done by simply folding along the mountain ranges. In doing so, the mountains would be smoothed out to form flat plains. The ancient planet was in other words a relatively flat place with few mountains compared to what we have today.

The fact that mountain ranges form in relatively predictable places is added evidence to the expanding Earth hypothesis. There is nothing random about the location of mountain ranges. Using the expanding Earth model, their location are easy to explain.

Expanding Earth seen from the South Pole

Are Stars Electrical Accelerators?

If stars are externally powered, as suggested by the Electrical Universe Theory, then where does the external power come from? What is the external source that powers all the stars in the universe?

The answer to this question may be that it is in fact the stars themselves that provide the electricity. If stars are made of relatively dense material, and Hydrogen and Helium ions are radiated from their surface through fission, then the energy going in towards a star is likely to be less than the energy going out from it. In other words, the process is likely to be exothermic.

In such a scenario, stars will function as electrical accelerators, radiating more energy than they consume. Particles will become ever more energetic and plentiful over time. The extremely high energy of cosmic rays can thus be explained.

Such a process can go on for a very long time. However, at some point there will be no more material to fission into cosmic rays. The accelerations will stop. But this will not be the end. The radiation from stars and galaxies will combine into enormous electrical currents which in turn collapse in on themselves (z-pinch) producing new stars and galaxies.

The collapse will fuse dust and rubble together. Heavy material will be produced through fusion. Although bright and hot, the collapse is endothermic. The new stars will have the same qualities as the old ones. They will be made of heavy material that will fission and accelerate cosmic rays. Everything starts afresh.

In such a universe there is no beginning and no end, only an eternal process of birth, death and rebirth.

Hourglass nebula

By NASA, R. Sahai, J. Trauger (JPL), and The WFPC2 Science Team - http://www.spacetelescope.org/images/opo9607a/, Public Domain, Link

Stating the Obvious

Forking over trillions of dollars to corporations and bureaucrats does not save the planet.

Light conversation

Comets and Stars

It has lately become clear that comets are not "dirty snowballs" as earlier believed, but rocky objects with no obvious source of water anywhere. This is odd because the tails of comets contain water. Where does that water come from if comets are rocks?

The answer to this may be that the water is synthesized electrically through fission. Hydrogen and oxygen atoms are ripped out of the rock so to speak, and combined to form water.

One indication that this is in fact what is happening is the abundance of Deuterium in the water coming off comets. Measurements made by the Rosetta spacecraft showed that Deuterium is three times as abundant in comet water as it is on Earth, and this is exactly what we should expect from synthetic water. Heavy elements contain an abundance of Neutrons. Fission of rock into Hydrogen would therefore have a tendency to produce the heavy Deuterium version of Hydrogen rather than plain Hydrogen.

But if it is the case that comets produce light elements through fission, could it not be the case that the exact same mechanism happens at a grand scale on stars. The electrical stress on comets is after all trivial compared to what must be happening near the surface of stars.

The fact that comets appear to be rocky objects capable of synthesizing lighter elements lends support to the idea that stars too are rocky objects, and that they too synthesize lighter elements. The reason stars appear to be made mainly of Hydrogen is not because they are made of Hydrogen but because Hydrogen is synthesized in great abundance right at their surface.

Comet

By Philipp Salzgeber - http://salzgeber.at/astro/pics/9703293.html, CC BY-SA 2.0 at, Link

The Density of Earth

It is generally believed that our planet has a super-dense core,

This springs from the fact that gravity measured at the surface of our planet is very strong, and a strong gravitational field implies dense matter, assuming Newton was right about gravity being mass attracting mass.

Rocks and minerals found at the surface of our planet are not dense enough to account for the gravitational field, so the assumption is that there must be a lot of denser stuff deeper down. This makes sense because heavy stuff sink into lighter stuff. However, there is a problem with this idea, and that is the fact that there is no net gravity at the center of our planet. There is no reason for dense stuff to accumulate in the center of our planet. In fact, the opposite seems more likely.

In the absence of gravity, the centripetal force of our rotating planet becomes dominant in the region close to the center of our planet. This means that dense stuff is pushed outwards in this area. Using Newton's theory of gravity, we are more likely to find a gas filled hollow at the center of our planet than a super-dense core. Yet we require a super-dense core in order to explain the gravitational force. Density has to increase all the way down.

However, using the capacitor model of gravity, no super-dense core is required. The capacitor model does not require an increase in density all the way to the core, nor does it predict it, The capacitor model predicts that the densest stuff will be found roughly half way between the inner and outer surface of our hollow planet. It predicts a substantially less dense planet.

This in turn, has significant implications when it comes to how seismic data is to be interpreted. Sound waves travel slower in a less dense medium. That means that earthquakes that appear to be happening at depths up to 700 km, are in fact happening closer to the surface. It also means that seismic waves do not travel through the core of our planet, but around the perimeter. It means that Jan Lamprecht was right in his interpretation of seismic data.

Cross section of a hollow planet

Is Exothermic Fusion a Myth?

It is generally believed that stars produce energy through nuclear fusion at their core. This assumption rests on spectral analysis of the light coming from stars, including our sun, that reveals large quantities of Hydrogen and Helium.

The idea is that stars are mainly made of Hydrogen which is fused into Helium at the great pressures assumed to be at the center of stars. However, plain Hydrogen does not fuse readily into Helium. Only the rare isotope called Deuterium can fuse into Helium.

Deuterium is produced by fusing a Neutron onto a Proton. This is an endothermic process, and it is only because some of this energy is released when two Deuterium atoms fuse into Helium that we get energy produced. However the total energy requirement for the production of Helium by fusing together two Protons and two Neutrons may well be larger than the energy produced. The total process may be endothermic, rather than exothermic.

The reason we see a lot of Hydrogen and Helium in the light specter of stars is not necessarily because they are made of these elements, but because these elements are produced from heavier elements that is heated to millions of degrees in the corona. The abundance of Hydrogen and Helium might very well be the bi-product of fission.

The surface of our Sun, which is clearly liquid in nature, is not necessarily some kind of exotic Hydrogen, but something as mundane as liquid rock, also known as magma. When bits of this magma is thrown up and heated to millions of degrees in the corona, Hydrogen and Helium, as well as other light elements are produced.

The Sun

By NASA/SDO (AIA) - http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/browse/2010/08/19/20100819_003221_4096_0304.jpg, Public Domain, Link

Newton's Hollow Earth

Contrary to what some believe, hollow planets are not in violation with Newton's law of gravity. Newton's contemporary Edmond Halley presented a paper in 1692 suggesting that our planet is hollow, and Newton did not object to this when he reviewed it.

The reason Newton did not protest was that the notion of a hollow Earth is in full agreement with Newton's Shell Theorem, which forms the basis of most calculations regarding gravity. According to this theorem, there is no net gravitational pull inside a hollow shell. There is nothing to pull matter towards the center inside a hollow planet, so a hollow, once formed, will remain in place.

The main divergence between Newton's gravitational model and the capacitor model of gravity is in what happens if a hollow planet was to expand. According to Newton, surface gravity would decrease with expansion unless matter was added in the process. However, the capacitor model predicts an increase in surface gravity with expansion, even without any added matter. This is because a growing shell increases its electrical capacitance with expansion.

Cross section of a planet as a hollow spherical capacitor

The capacitor model further predicts a hollow to be expected, while Newton's model merely allows for it. The capacitor model also predicts an element of repulsion between large bodies in close proximity to each other, making collisions less likely than what Newton's model predicts.

The essential difference between the capacitor model and Newton's model is that the capacitor model suggests that it is charge that attracts mass, while Newton's hypothesis is that it is mass that attracts mass. The difference in practical terms are in fact small. By and large, the two models predict identical behavior. The difference in what these models predict are limited to the case of expanding planets and large bodies in extreme close proximity to each other.