Venus, the destroyer of Worlds Part 1
There are a great many stories and legends about a rogue planet X in our short human history that have fascinated me greatly in the course of my present life.
Over the years I have read many books and dug deep into tons of ancient records, thoroughly examining various past civilizations knowledge of the subject of said rogue planets and delved into the references from where said works on the matter at hand have been obtained.
I usually run into two common roadblocks in this sort of research.
Dogma and Academia, and they seem to be linked to each other.
Dogma as a block to everything sane and rational I understand fully, but Academia being stamped by Dogma of various types renders my mind agog from the close minded modus operandi that these types exhibit as a disturbing character trait.
Due to academia and dogma fudging of facts over the millennia, there may indeed be more than one of these wandering planets in our past that wrought all manner of havoc and mayhem on our world as well as others in our solar system, like Mars, Venus and the late planet Tiamat for example.
We have the asteroid belt and debris out in the Oort cloud and beyond that stand as testimony to the destruction of Tiamat and maybe one other planet whose shattered fragments are a monument to what transpired in those regions at some point in the very violent past of our solar system.
We have also been studying some very strange correlations from our own recorded history along with all of the evidence that went with it and we have been checking hundreds of sites on the planet to verify these data sets with their stark evidence for ourselves.
Also making sense of what events could lead to the seas parting in the time of Exodus need some explanation, as do the various plagues and pestilence that came with it.
It would seem that the wandering planet wreaking mayhem and destruction in the solar system over the last 6000 years was not Nibiru at all as has been supposed by some.
It was in fact Venus in 3700 BC and twice in around 1500 BC, (separated by 52 years) and then Mars became the bad boy between 800 and 700 BC after Venus and Mars collided with each other, knocking Mars and Venus into new orbits.
In recent times we have also discovered that hundreds of millions of rogue planets wander between solar systems and this influence also needs to be baked into the reckoning.
The last 3 years I have also had several AMD threadripper rigs running very special simulation software in a cluster grid and we have come up with several new scenarios that fit the planetary picture of our solar system using them.
I have also come into possession of a CRAY CS system powered by AMD EPYC 7002 CPU's to also run various modeling systems.
This is helping us process and analyze data from Mars rovers and various instruments in space such as Hubble.
Ancient records persistently claim they could see the atmosphere of Mars and the rovers on Mars have confirmed some theories about Mars and it's missing water and rivers.
The water did not dissipate millions of years ago, it happened much less recently than that. As In the last 10,000 years and more specifically when Mars and Venus collided with each other.
Imagine the heat of Venus when it touched Mars and what that heat and contact did to Mars.
Our new modelling almost exactly leaves us looking at what Mars is now.
It would seem the atmosphere and most of the water on Mars evaporated when this happened and I would bet big carrots is now to be found in the complex atmosphere of Venus.
The globular aspect of planet formation tells us that Mars should not be where it now is either so the planets getting moved and knocked into different orbits has to be fact due to this evidence.
If it doesn't fit it doesn't fit!!
Another revelation is whatever other wandering planets travel through our solar system from time to time can actually cause the planets to bounce around and change their orbits due to a combination of electro-gravitational factors such as the electrical charge of the invading planet or body moving through our solar system.
New observational data from past civilizations we have found also place Mars in an orbit INSIDE that of Earth, NOT where it is today.
So close in fact we could once see clouds and water on Mars.
Velikovsky was right about this supposition as well and also explains a great many other mysteries about Mars that have been plaguing us greatly.
I will shortly be posting a new blog as these pages have limits apparently.
Nibiru by the way, as a planet of the Anunnaki refers to a time some 437,000 years before the present era. More of that in yet another blog!
I believe Nibiru was trapped by the gravitational attraction of the Sun but when it got to a certain distance in the nearby vicinity of the sun a powerful charge from the Sun and this planet ejected it from our solar system.
I believe this planet is now headed toward Sirius where a similar interaction will shoot it back to our Sun and I believe there are more than one of these planets in this situation that get tossed between neighboring Suns.
It is clear that for long periods that things were fairly stable but these other bodies and resulting orbits and positions clearly result in different conditions where different species of plant and creatures take root to suit the conditions at hand.
We can see in the fossil record that the Earth was a dead barren rock and then suddenly life arrives and gets wiped out and then arrives again.
This is a continuous cycle.
But you can see from the proteizoic era that there was no life on Earth in that era.
It is also starting to look to me like the dinosaur era was not as long ago as we currently think it was.
Surviving pottery from South America depicting various tribes people riding various dinosaurs like horses that are 4000-10,000 years old have made me reconsider the timing of the dinosaur period.
I think the glaciation and high temperature exposure with various exotic radiation has messed with our ability to time our past accurately.
The appearance of Venus in our night sky in its current position can only be traced back to between 1500-2000 BC by the way.
It also seems to have made several passes as a spectacular comet 52 years after the first 1500 BC event to finally settle in the Orbit where it now lies after said collision hoohah with Mars.
Close correlation attempts put these final passes of Venus closer to 1500 BC than to 2000 BC.
At this time, Venus passed by Earth so closely that the tug on our crust, magnetic core and the electromagnetic field effect on our Earth from this huge passing body was dramatically devastating to the crust and oceans as well as all life on the planet.
This close proximity also altered the orbit of both bodies significantly.
This effect was not as devastating as the first pass that it made in roughly 3700 BC though.
Today, the orbit of Venus is static around the sun, but it has some very peculiar characteristics and traits that confirm the ideas of one Immanuel Velikovsky, who correctly claimed a lot of things about Venus that have come to be proven correct by no less than NASA and a great many boffins and space cadet gurus in their employ.
Oh, and one Albert Einstein also eventually agreed his Pal Immanuel was correct with many of his theories before he died by the way.
Velikovsky also suggested that the stable Darwinian evolution theory is complete and utter bunk, and outlined precisely why.
This is something I knew for a fact myself the very day I was born.
You only have to swiftly realize that there are many species on the Earth that have not ever evolved one IOTA to consign the paper bearing Darwin's Origin of species to it's only meaningful task, that of igniting the charcoal of a Big Green Egg grill for a fantastic barbecue experience.
Darwin's theory only holds water if the solar system is a stable and unchanging environment for millions of Eons.
Sadly this is not the reality and this has never been the reality.
We know for example from recent historical records that up to 800 BC a year on earth was a 360 day trip around the sun.
Our solar system is like a gigantic Van Der Graaf generator and the planets are all electrostatically charged balls with differing mass and behaviors.
Jupiter seems to be a creator of electrically charged planetary bodies the size of Earth and Venus which are ejected from its red spot in a process unknown to science of our age.
Dark matter to make the standard model work is also a good indicator of mental unwellness in academia at large.
The Higgs bosun or the so called God particle does not exist and if it did merely ask how it got it's mass to debunk that theory in one swift move.
The whole dark matter thing is in fact as smooth as a cat pissing on velvet.
Many Morons in academia have been trying to force fit Darwin's stable theory to that of past records and have been unable to correlate ancient star positions to what the Earth currently offers.
Open minded evaluation concludes the planet had a different orbit that indeed took 360 days to go around the sun.
Still earlier records indicate a 10 month cycle around the Sun and the Earth was dry and parched in this period which indicates it was much closer to the sun than it is now.
The glacial periods of the last 500,000 years are also a bit of evidence that the Earth's orbit has changed and was so far from the sun that we did freeze.
This has nothing to to with insolation and axis tilt in the current position of the Earth to explain it and all the other gubbins they have been trying to force fit.
The thing is simple, the planets bob and move around within the solar system based on other influences and planets moving through the solar system and their electric charge with gravity changes where it is at any given time.
The asteroid belt lies as testimony to the fact that something massive collided with another planet in the solar system and it was destroyed as a result of these heavenly machinations.
This all underlines Darwin's stable body theory as being total and utter 24 carat crap.
Darwin correctly thought he was a monkey
That is merely wishful thinking of the delusional on a grand old scale of denial almost as bad as that created by Dogma itself.
You can trace the glacial periods to orbits the Earth had at the time of the glaciation. Simple.
I was explaining this to a few Berkeley guys the other day and said specimen could not believe they had never considered this before.
Just goes to show what the education system does to people. It turns them into trains that can only move if they are on a track.
I always marvel at the shit that humans believe with respect to religion and stuff like Darwin's Origin of species and their bulldog tenacity to continue believing gobbledygook in the face of piles of evidence to the contrary.
Evolution has been proven to be a direct result of the mutation of genes by radiation of different types.
Radiation that came from close proximity supernova events or other factors that moved the planet in and out of various temperate zones....
Everyone has been assuming that the Earth has been in the same orbit for billions of years and it simply hasn't.
It would seem that all the major flood and cataclysm tales in our recent history have a sole perpetrator, and the guilty party to all this celestial drama is no less than the planet Venus herself.
Earthquakes and other maladies 700-800 years after Venus threatened the Earth seem to have been due to the new orbit of Mars after a Mars-Venus billiard ball sort of clash in the heavens, but again this was all due to Venus interceding in the orbit of Mars and triggering a whole bunch of domino effects in the solar system.
Somehow, as the legends of "myth" record, Venus was ejected from the red spot on Jupiter and we have many of these "myths" that survive, regaling us with the tale of how Jupiter gave birth to Venus to mull over.
These tales telling us this story were not myth at all and were incorrectly interpreted by those wearing Catholic cloth to be something else entirely because they were exceedingly dim of wit and in the business of legitimizing their own deliberately concocted feces fables.
Blinded by their own bollocks and spins on their own unhealthy tall tale justification process, actual reality seemed to be the myth and they just declared it as such.
Funny how the ancients only wrote "myth" don't you think?
The story of the past also coincides with massive floods and death on our planet that we just have not been able to explain through conventional wisdom as put forward by the Dogma and Academia delusion show.
The fact is, several events that caused the seas and the land to swap places and kill just about everything in the water and on land happened in 3700 BC and to a degraded extent in two smaller scale events in roughly 1500 BC.
Then, between 800 and 700 BC, after Mars and Venus knocked into each other and presented new problems for the solar system members due to their new post clash orbits and us here on Earth in particular, Mars roamed close enough to have further devastating effects on our planet.
These events were well recorded but as I said, men of cloth took a "religious" interpretation as to their meaning.
An egregious error if ever I saw one!
The damage surveyed on Earth from the Venus events cannot be caused by any asteroid or meteorite as it is clear that in around 3700 BC, huge waves of muck bearing forests and all the dead animals that lived in them were smashed and transported across the globe in massive waves.
The twin events in the 1500 BC era resulted in an East-West pull and drag and then a West-East pull and drag event some 52 years after the first event.
Satellite images of the Sahara where the eye of Africa can be seen from space is the best ever evidence that this occurred, we can still see how the sand was dragged in said directions by something exerting huge tidal influences on Earth!
In the 3700 BC event, the torsional force acting on the Earth was so strong that even mountains moved and were raised and in some cases sank and new seas were created in this maelstrom of death and violent change on our planet as these tidal torsional forces ripped the crust and seas that were covering crust apart in places as Venus went by.
Electro-gravito forces from Venus made the solid crust act like a water wave as forces acted on the magma in the core which then twisted and torsioned the crust and everything on it as its gravitation and magnetic influences impacted our planet
This violence did not transpire over hundreds of millennia or millions of years ago.
This violence happened in a short span of time that lasted days to weeks while both planetary bodies gravitational pulls twisted and torqued each other mightily.
Venus would likely have suffered very similar effects to Earth herself.
As the moon does today, the influences and tidal pulls would have started exerting very damaging effects on Earth from the moment it came into range and started exerting its massive tidal forces on our planet.
The fields of destruction across the globe but particularly in Siberia, Alaska, Europe, Africa and wherever life thrived, left us with piles of dead flora and fauna which lies up to 220 feet deep in places with clear evidence that sea and land swapped places and confirms a massive extraterrestrial body or different bodies, with considerable gravitational and electromagnetic influence caused mayhem here in at least three distinct and separate events over the last 6000 years.
Millions of these ancient Rhino's et al died suddenly all over the planet
The bodies of these mammoths and rhino that defrost from time to time are still fresh and edible once unfrozen.
The Inuit even feed them to their dogs when they come upon a freshly unfrozen specimen.
This means they did not decay, they were flash frozen post mortem.
The bodies are smashed, as are the forest trees that lie with them and they froze very suddenly before they had the chance to decay.
What force could possibly cause such mayhem on such a stupendous scale?
The fact is, our Genome says we are 203,000 years old, yet our historical records only take us back to 9000-15,000 years ago, depending on who's dates you care to believe.
Until recently our only real surviving historical records we had did in fact only reach back to 3700 BC.
Clearly, several violent events wiped our memory clean of these catastrophes, yet the evidence lies around us in plain sight as to these instances of cataclysm as well as written words in almost every culture that recorded them.
In fact I doubt any culture failed to mention it.
Just about every piano key and billiard ball came from the sea of death that left fields of frozen ivory strewn all over the planet in massive quantities.
After reading Velikovsky's stuff and discussing it with various JPL folks I think we have two culprits that can be held responsible for most maladies we suffered over the last last 6,000 years in three major events from Venus and two minor aftershock repercussive events from Mars.
The clearly visible scar that the wandering Venus left behind for us to gawk at on Mars from the electromagnetic fireworks show caused by the interaction of these two wandering planets also probably robbed Mars of its atmosphere and much of the magnetism of its core as an aftermath effect.
Records survive in our historical and religious texts that refer to the atmosphere of Mars stretched into many strange shapes like swords and animals of different kinds.
How did they see that from here on Earth you may very well ask? They saw it because Mars had a new orbit that brought it very close to Earth.
Mars was visible in those days to that level of detail.
There is evidence of massive electrical spark charge interactions that flew between the two planets as the magnetic fields of Mars and Venus acted upon each other while they danced together in the heavens.
It seems that Mars and Venus impacted each other on more than one occasion as well.
It is likely these collisions between Mars and Venus saved the Earth from total destruction.
I at first thought a weapon of huge proportion did this damage to Mars but this idea was consigned to the BGE fire starter pile when I worked out the energy that would have been required for this sort of damage plus my iron filings experiment confirmed this was what such an electro-gravitic event would produce on the surface of each planet.
I would wager a significant sum that when they can scan Venus under her clouds one day they will find a similar matching scar.
At the close of the 1950's people were very cocky and arrogant and assumed they knew everything there was to know about science bar a few minor details.
A tremendously bewildering stance and attitude from academia that I fail to understand to this very day!
Science and education is about learning more with an open mind. The book is never shut on anything!
The sentiment that you know everything and are not open to learning more seems to be half our problem these days.
My mouth drops to the floor when I see alleged scientists professing they know everything and the matter is closed and they simply won't discuss it again.
Archaeology, astronomy and math in particular seems full of these sorts of petulant morons acting like three year old spoilt shits.
The ridiculous reaction to Velikovsky when he predicted Venus was new, would be at least 600 degrees F and solid logical views of the unexplained death on Earth from 3700 BC and twin 1500 BC events and their cause referenced from recorded history annals these morons in academia (sic) classified as "myth" seems to have been rather a strong but typical human overreaction to a logical and exquisitely rational argument.
Unfortunately for said protesters, since 1950 Velikovsky has been proven absolutely correct in a great many of his thoughts and ideas.
In fact almost everything he so elaborately suggested has been verified as fact.
He did not do much work here either, in truth, it was all recorded in the annals of history.
All he had to do was pull it out and examine it with an open mind and put the pieces together.
These protesters of his hailing from academia were in fact the heretics, not Velikovsky!
So much for the education (sic) and IQ (double sic) of those protesters of his hailing from academia!
Venus birthed by Jupiter
When I witness agents of academia behaving they way they did against Velikovsky and others like him I am prompted to think, well, here truly begins a new genus of man, behold the Homo Ignoramus!!
Now let me tell you the new age specimen of Homo Ignoramus running around the planet today is truly fascinating to behold and observe in their various sub-genus of Ignoramus.
The most fascinating are them broke "woke" twats.
There appears to be many thousands of variants of new age Homo Ignoramus as well, all trying to blend in until they open their mouths, at which point they are exposed forever.
Don't even start me on the subject of the entitlement most Millennial variants of Homo Ignoramus carry with them, along with their delusional beliefs and non existent work ethic.
Let's look at what man does not know very briefly to make said point.
I will have to nutshell it because man basically knows nothing about a great many things indeed.
Man does not know what life is and how it came to be on this planet, or if any other planets or moons in our solar system have life in them or on them.
Man also does not know what created this solar system and how it came into being.
Man does not know what the force he calls gravitation is that allows him to walk with his feet on the ground and if it is a push or a pull force or if it is something else that keeps him on the ground.
Sure, he has developed hypotheses about it, but ultimately, he still does not know.
Man also does not know how the continents came to be or what keeps reseeding life after cataclysmic catastrophes that wipe out all living things on the Earth.
Man believes that oil and hydrocarbons come from rotting dinosaurs but other planets that never had life have hydrocarbons and petroleum gasses in massive quantities on them.
Man thinks he has lived on the planet Earth for millions of years but his MTA DNA data shows a mere 203,000 years and he only has historical records of a few thousand years to contemplate and mull over.
Man does not know how mountains and deserts came into existence or what put the salt in the sea or where that salt came from.
Man does not know why the Bronze age preceded the Iron age even though Iron is the most abundant element on the planet!
Man thinks he evolved from monkeys but cannot find the evidence to support it apart from the fact that many of them behave like monkeys!
Man also cannot explain the flood legends in all societies on the planet, bar none (Yes even Egypt and Japan).
Man also believes he has risen from a single cell to the homo sapien being he is now in all his short genus span or that a being called God created him for reasons unknown just because...
In short, man don't know shit!
He thinks about science and religion in the same terms and is blessed with infinite helpings of crass stupidity.
Along comes a guy like Velikovsky, a very well educated man and suddenly he is a damnation and heretic that must be discredited by the most gifted Homo Ignoramus morons that academia has on offer just because he dared challenge the accepted wisdom that is absolutely flawed that they claim is settled?
Such stupendous arrogance!
Come on people, get with the darn program willya!!
I have watched a great many TV and film interviews of this Velikovsky fellow and boy, what a fabulous intellect!
For me, he is on a par with Tesla, Ramanujan and Einstein except he had fifty times more common sense than the lot of them combined.
Venus by the way, turned out to be much newer and hotter than what even Velikovsky had predicted.
The last probe recorded temperatures of 857 degrees F on the surface of Venus, when all the educated morons of the day were stating it would be 17 degrees C and could be as high as 89 degrees C but no more.
Venus also spins so slow that a day on Venus is longer than the time it takes to go around the sun! The only planet where a year is shorter than a day!!
Velikovsky also predicted radio signals would be coming from Jupiter and that is a fact that cannot be contradicted.
We have several probes in space around Jupiter sending us daily data from the planet with this information.
The recent discovery on Earth of a giant submarine canyon that goes around the planet almost two full twisted rotations is stark evidence of a violent torque that the planet was subjected to in the very recent past.
There is also that layer of ash in the oceans of extraterrestrial origin that underlies all oceans to contemplate and muse about at length as well as affording us the opportunity to contemplate the paleomagnetic evidence we have that bears out that the Earth's magnetic poles were reversed, swapped and the terrestrial axis with them, and this happened fairly often.
We now accept these things as solid known facts.
We have clear evidence that the solar system is not electromagnetically sterile at all as Darwin and other harebrained fools suggested in the past.
In his defense he was not a scientist and it was an entertaining theory, while it lasted.
The fittest did not survive, only those with workable gene mutations survived!
Velikovsky's prediction that Venus is covered in hydrocarbons and petroleum gases was verified as fact by Mariner II and several others dispatched to re-verify the data since.
The greenhouse effect alone cannot explain the temperature of Venus, nor can radiation decay or the heat of the sun itself.
Venus is 67 million miles from the sun and should be much cooler than it is now if it was as old as the other planets.
Venus is in fact shrouded in a 15 mile thick layer of hydrocarbon gases 45 miles above the surface of the planet.
NASA stated they were most puzzled this atmosphere was thicker than that of the Earth itself and the litany of special studies to debunk and denounce Velikovsky's lucky guesses as a result of the data validating his work is truly stunning.
The poor men of science whose delicate and fragile egos got fucked up six-love, six love by a hebrew with common sense, oh my!!
Venus also spins retrogradely and very slowly as if newly captured by the sun's gravity, because that is exactly the situation.
By the way, please note that there are plenty of hydrocarbons on Venus and they never had dinosaurs there, ever!
If Venus is cooling and it is 847 Degrees F on its surface now, I suspect the old dinosaurs would not have thrived there for any length of time!
Maybe they had thermal underwear but the grass and plants they ate burns at much lower temperatures so obvious logic rules that out as well unless the plants there also wore thermal underwear..
Also, Venus is hotter at night on it's dark side than the day side facing the sun!!
Go chew on that shit for awhile!!
It would seem that the theories of science are only held for the vested interests they represent for those that hold them and the financial gains they happen to make from them or the academic kudos of the boys in the close minded academia club or the protection of brittle and fragile egos proven wrong by cold facts and even colder logic.
It is likely that it is a genus flaw in the DNA of the Homo Ignoramus that makes its members stubbornly refuse to use the organ between their ears or an added gene mutation that makes them behave like retarded French bulldogs when it comes to matters of science and dogma. (Apologies to both the French and the bulldog genus at large).
The events of 3700 BC and 1500 BC are merely three acts of a great and violent drama that is the life of our solar system.
Modern physics and Quantum theory has proven dramatic changes to the microcosm involving atoms and electrons et al occur all the time and the solar system is a macrocosm of the same events in that both are not that dissimilar to each other at all.
However each has laws of nature unto their own realms. Planets are not pretend atoms circling the nucleus or electron or proton copycats.
Planets have mass and electromagnetic gravity properties.
It should be remembered that a law is but a deduction from experience, experiment, logic and observation and therefore any derived laws must conform to historical facts and not the facts with the laws.
An important distinction.
Of course many things you just do not know answers to, other than what someone else may have told you about the subject at hand, but the same rules apply.
If you don't know, educate yourself with a questioning and open mind!
Do not close it when you feel something is settled and understood.
Nothing is settled and understood to finality, its the latest information and deduction we have based on the data of the moment.
The other issue re these events in the recent past to contemplate is the subject of the collective amnesia of the people of Earth as to these massive non-trivial events?
Is this psychological or enforced trauma based?
Billions of beings wiped out in a flash with seas and mountains changing places is hardly a trivial event.
Did someone re-seed the planet again after these violent cataclysmic events?
This seems pretty likely to me!
It is clear to me that cryogenic seed banks called arks were parked in space, on the Moon, Mars and anywhere else they could hide them from the tidal effects of Venus as she swept by.
No doubt there were also survivors on Earth as the old biblical tales refer to.
Whatever the case, the fact the genetics changed overnight to adapt to the new climate is also pretty interesting.
Look at these old woolly rhinos and Mammoths then go look at elephants and modern rhino's (what's left of them at any rate!) and then compare them.
This genetic tinkering did not come from tidal gravitational waves!! There was no time for evolution from 3700 BC to what we have today for these examples.
Something was tinkering with the survivors in a genetic laboratory.
Ask yourself why the Bronze age preceded the Iron age when bronze alloys are so much more difficult to derive than plain old iron?
Does not make sense to me at all that one.
Consider these flood legends from all over the globe and the wave of silt and such covering everything.
There are literally thousands of Pyramids disguised as mountains and hills covered in this muddy silty shit to bear out the fact a huge wave of mud and dead carrion buried a lot of things on our planet in a massively violent manner in the recent past.
Yet here we all are!!
The many pyramids and other cities and artifacts such as the Easter Island Moai were not deliberately buried, it was all a natural consequence of Venus tidal pull and influence on our planet as it went past us and the huge tidal wave of muck that buried them from the tsunami wave that resulted.
The biggest and most damaging tsunami the Earth ever had.
Let us look at the theory of the origins of the planetary system, which we by and large reference through the work of one Isaac Newton on the subjects of celestial mechanics and gravitational theory.
It is alleged that the sun attracts the planets and if it was not for a second force they would actually all fall into the sun and be consumed by it.
However, each planet or bodies in orbit around the sun is impelled by its own momentum to proceed in a direction away from the sun forming the aforementioned orbit around it.
A question oft neglected is ok, but where did the initial force come from that gifted its inertia to these planets and is it a push or a pull force and what was it's genesis?
All theories of the origin of the planetary system and the motive forces that sustain the motion of its members go back to the gravitational theory and the celestial mechanics work of Newton.
The sun attracts the planets, and if it were not for a second urge, they would fall into the sun, however, each planet is impelled by its momentum to proceed in a direction away from the sun, and as a result, an orbit around the sun is formed.
Similarly, a satellite or a moon is subject to an urge that drives it away from its primary, but the attraction of the primary bends the path on which the satellite would have proceeded if there had been no attraction between the bodies, and out of these urges a satellite orbit is traced.
The inertia or persistence of motion implanted in planets and satellites was postulated by Newton, but the lazy bastard did not explain how or when the initial pull or push occurred.
The theory of the origin of the planetary system which dominated the entire nineteenth century was proposed by Swedenborg, the theologian, and Kant, the philosopher.
It was put into scientific terms by Laplace, although not explored by him quantitatively, and in brief is as follows:
Hundreds of millions of years ago the sun was nebulous and very large and had a form approaching that of a disc.
This disc was as wide as the whole orbit of the farthest of the planets.
It rotated around its center.
Owing to the process of compression caused by gravitation, a globular sun shaped itself in the center of the disc.
Due to the rotating motion of the whole nebula, a centrifugal force was in action; parts of matter more on the periphery resisted the retracting action directed toward the center and broke up into rings which balled into globes –these were the planets in the process of forming themselves.
In other words, as a result of the shrinkage of the rotating sun, matter broke away and portions of this solar material developed into the planets.
The plane in which the planets revolve is called the equatorial plane of the sun.
This theory is now regarded as unsatisfactory in terms of solving adequately all the bodies within it.
Three of many objections in particular stand out above others in the list.
First, the velocity of the axial rotation of the sun at the time the planetary system was built could not have been sufficient to enable bands of matter to break away, and even if they had broken away, they would not have balled into globes.
Second, the Laplace theory does not explain why the planets have larger angular velocity of daily rotation and yearly revolution that the sun alone could have imparted to them.
Third, what made some of the satellites revolve retrogradely, or in a direction opposite to that of most of the members of the solar system?
It appears to be clearly established that, whatever structure we assign to a primitive sun, a planetary system cannot come into being merely as the result of the sun’s rotation.
If a sun, rotating alone in space, is not able by itself to produce its family of planets and satellites, it becomes necessary to invoke the presence and assistance of some second body.
This brings us rapidly to the idea of tidal theory.
The tidal theory, which, in its earlier stage, was called the planetesimal theory, assumes that long ago another star passed close to the sun.
An immense tide of matter arose from the sun in the direction of the passing star and was torn from the body of the sun but remained in its domain, this being the material out of which the planets were built.
In the planetesimal theory the mass that was torn out broke into small parts which solidified in space and some were driven out of the solar system, and some fell back into the sun, but the rest moved around it because of its (the sun) gravitational pull.
Sweeping in elongated orbits around the sun, they conglomerated, rounded out their orbits as a result of mutual collisions, and grew to form planets and satellites around the planets.
The tidal theory does not allow the matter torn from the sun to disperse first and reunite later and the tide broke into a few portions that rather quickly changed from gaseous to fluid, and then to the solid state.
In support of this theory it was indicated that such a tide, when broken into a number of “drops,” would probably build the largest “drops” out of its middle portion, and small “drops” from its beginning (near the sun) and its end (most remote from the sun).
Actually, Mercury, nearest to the sun, is a small planet.
Venus is larger; earth is a little larger than Venus; Jupiter is three hundred and twenty times as large as the earth (in mass); Saturn is somewhat smaller than Jupiter; Uranus and Neptune, though large planets, are not as large as Jupiter and Saturn.
Pluto is much smaller than Mercury.
The first difficulty of the tidal hypothesis lies in the very point adduced in its support, the mass of the planets.
Between the earth and Jupiter there revolves a small planet, Mars, a tenth part of the earth in mass, where, according to the scheme, a planet ten to fifty times as large as the earth should be expected.
Again, Neptune is larger and not smaller than Uranus.
However there was once a planet there called Tiamat which does fit the bill nicely, so this theory for me scores brownie points because of Tiamat.
Tiamat was a very large planet.
However, Mars screws with the theory!! Where did Mars come from?
Also the rings around Saturn are interesting.
I have an idea that Jupiter and Saturn birth the planets by cleavage and that two smaller cleavage efforts collided with each other creating these rings around Saturn, but it's just a theory I am toying with.....
Another difficulty with tidal theory by the way is the allegedly rare chance of an encounter between two stars.
One of the authors of the tidal theory gave this estimate of its probability: “At a rough estimate we may suppose that a given star’s chance of forming a planetary system is one in 5,000,000,000,000,000,000 years.”
Since the lifespan of a star is much shorter than this figure, “only about one star in 100,000 can have formed a planetary system in the whole of its life.”
In the galactic system of one hundred million stars, planetary systems “form at the rate of about one per five billion years.
Our own system, with an age of the order of two billion years, is probably one of the youngest systems in the whole galactic system of stars.”
The nebular and tidal theories alike regard the planets as derivatives of the sun, and the satellites as derivatives of the planets.
The problem of the origin of the moon can be regarded as "disturbing" to the tidal theory.
However, I believe the moon is in fact an artificial structure that was deliberately placed where it now is.
Its orbit and mechanics are definitely not natural.
Being smaller than the earth, the theory espouses that the moon completed earlier the process of cooling and shrinking, and the lunar volcanoes had already ceased to be active.
It is calculated that the moon possesses a lighter specific weight than the earth.
It is assumed that the moon was produced from the superficial layers of the earth’s body, which are rich in light silicon, whereas the core of the earth, the main portion of its body, is made of heavy metals, particularly iron.
However, this assumption postulates the origin of the moon as not simultaneous with the origin of the earth, while the earth, being formed out of a mass ejected from the sun, had to undergo a process of leveling, which placed the heavy metals in the core and silicon at the periphery, before the moon parted from the earth by a new tidal distortion.
This would mean two consecutive tidal distortions in a system where the chance of even one is held extremely rare.
If the passing of one star near another happens among one hundred million stars once in five billion years, two occurrences like this for one and the same star seem quite un-credible unless it was a binary star that impacted us........
The closest star to earth is Sirius and we have recently found there are gravitational links between our sun and Sirius.
Maybe suns from each passing binary impacted each other?
Meanwhile, back to the tidal theory with respect to the planets, as no better explanation is available, the satellites are supposed to have been torn from the planets by the sun’s attraction on their first perihelion passage, when, sweeping along on stretched orbits, the planets came close to the sun.
The circling of the satellites around the planets also confronts existing cosmological theories with many difficulties.
Laplace built his theory of the origin of the solar system on the assumption that all planets and satellites revolve in the same direction.
They do not.
Venus and Uranus both spin retrograde to the other planets.
So we can add the work of Laplace to the Big Green Egg charcoal ignition program as well but it is useful reference to that inadequate thinking genre...
He wrote that the axial rotation of the sun and the orbital revolutions and axial rotations of the six planets, the moon, the satellites, and the rings of Saturn present forty-three movements, all in the same direction.
“One finds by the analysis of the probabilities that there are more than four thousand billion chances to one that this arrangement is not the result of chance and this probability is considered higher than that of the reality of historical events with regard to which no one would venture any doubts.”
He deduced that a common and primal cause directed the movements of the planets and satellites.
Since the time of Laplace, new members of the solar system have been discovered.
Now we know that though the majority of the satellites revolve in the same direction as the planets revolve and in sync with the direction the sun rotates, the moons of Uranus revolve in a plane almost perpendicular to the orbital plane of their planet, and three of the eleven moons of Jupiter, one of the nine moons of Saturn, and the one moon of Neptune revolve retrograde style.
These facts contradict the main argument of the Laplace theory: a rotating nebula could not produce satellites revolving in two opposing directions.
In the tidal theory the direction of the planets’ movements depended on the star that passed: it passed in the plane in which the planets now revolve and in a direction which determined their circling from west to east.
Why should the satellites of Uranus revolve perpendicularly to that plane and some moons of Jupiter and Saturn in reverse directions?
Why does Uranus spin retrograde?
This the tidal theory thoroughly fails to explain.
According to all existing theories, the angular velocity of the revolution of a satellite must be slower than the velocity of rotation of its parent.
However, the inner satellite of Mars revolves more rapidly than Mars rotates.
Some of the difficulties that confront the nebular and tidal theories also confront another theory that has been proposed in recent years.
According to said theory the sun is supposed to have been a member of a binary star system.
A passing star crushed the companion of the sun, and out of its debris planets were formed.
In further development of this particular hypothesis, it is maintained that the larger planets were built out of the debris, and the smaller ones, the so-called “terrestrial” planets, were formed from the larger ones by a process of cleavage.
The birth of smaller, solid planets out of the larger, gaseous ones is conjectured in order to explain the difference in the relation of weight to volume in the larger and smaller planets; but this theory is unable to explain the difference in the specific weights of the smaller planets and their satellites.
By a process of cleavage, the moon was born of the earth; but since the specific weight of the moon is greater than that of the larger planets and smaller than that of the earth, it would seem to be more in accord with the theory that the earth was born of the moon, despite its smaller size.
This confuses the argument.
The origin of the planets and their satellites remains unsolved.
The theories not only contradict one another, but each of them bears within itself its own contradictions. “If the sun had been unattended by planets, its origin and evolution would have presented no difficulty.”
The red spot on Jupiter however, gives us a large clue that verifies this cleavage hypothesis somewhat.
Jupiter ejects large masses in a process unknown to science from this red spot and we have recorded historical visual observations that confirm this is the case.
The origin of el Comets
The nebular and tidal theories endeavor to explain the origin of the solar system but do not include the comets in their schemes.
Comets are obviously much more numerous than planets.
More than sixty comets are known to definitely belong to our solar system.
These are the comets of short periods (less than eighty years); they revolve in stretched ellipses and all but one do not go beyond the line marked by the orbit of Neptune.
It is estimated that, besides the comets of short periods, several hundred thousand comets visit the solar system; however, it is not known for certain that they return periodically.
They are seen presently at an approximate rate of five hundred in a century, and are said to have an average period of tens of thousands of years.
A few theories of the origin of comets have been proposed, but aside from one attempt to see in them planetesimals that did not receive a side pull sufficiently strong to bring them into circular orbits, no scheme has been developed that explains the origin of the solar system in its entirety, with all of its planets and comets and yet no cosmic theory can persist which limits itself to the problem of either planets or the comets exclusively.
One theory sees in the comets errant cosmic bodies arriving from interstellar space.
After approaching the sun, they turn away on an open (parabolic) curve.
If they happen to pass close to one of the larger planets, they may be compelled to change their open curves to ellipses and become comets of short period.
This is the theory of capture: comets of long periods or of no period are dislodged from their paths to become short-period comets.
What the origin of the long-period comets is remains an unanswered question.
The short-period comets apparently have some relation to the larger planets.
About fifty comets move between the sun and the orbit of Jupiter; their periods are under nine years.
Four comets reach the orbit of Saturn; two comets revolve inside the circle described by Uranus; and nine comets, with an average period of seventy-one years, move within the orbit of Neptune.
These comprise the system of the short-period comets as it is known at this time.
To the last group belongs the comet Haley, which, among the comets of short periods, has the longest period of revolution –approximately between seventy-five or seventy six years.
Then there is a great gap, after which there are comets that require thousands of years before they return to the sun, if they even return at all.
The distribution of the short-period comets suggested the idea that they were “captured” by the large planets.
This theory has for its support the direct observation that comets are disturbed on their path by the planets.
Another theory of the comets supposes their origin to have been in the sun, but in a manner unlike that conceived of in the tidal theory of the origin of planets.
Mighty whirls on the surface of the sun sweep ignited gases into great protuberances; these are observed daily.
This matter is driven off from the sun and returns to the sun in awesome visual displays of magneto-nuclear fireworks.
It is calculated that if the velocity of the ejection were to exceed 384 miles per second, the speed of motion in a parabola, the matter would not return to the sun but would become a long-range comet.
Then the path of the ejected mass might become perturbed as a result of its passage near one of the larger planets, and the comet would become one of a short period.
Birth of a comet in this manner has never been observed, and the probability that matter in explosion may reach a speed of 384 miles per second is highly questionable.
It was therefore supposed alternatively, that millions of years ago, when the activity of their gaseous masses was more dynamic, the large planets expelled comets from their bodies.
The speed required for the ejected mass to overcome the gravitational pull of the ejecting body is less in the case of the planets than in the case of the sun, owing to their smaller gravitational pull.
It is calculated that a mass hurled from Jupiter at a speed of about 38 miles per second, or at only a little more than a third of this velocity in the case of Neptune, would become expelled.
This variant of the theory neglects the question of the origin of the long-period comets.
However, an explanation was offered, according to which the large planets throw the comets that pass close to them from their short orbits into elongated ones, or even expel them entirely from the solar system.
When passing close to the sun, comets emit tails.
It is assumed that the material of the tail does not return to the comet’s head but is dispersed in space; consequently, the comets as luminous bodies must have a limited life.
If Halley’s comet has pursued its present orbit since late preCambrian times, it must “have grown and lost eight million tails, which seems improbable.”
If comets are wasted, their number in the solar system must permanently diminish, and no comet of short period could have preserved its tail since geological times.
However, as there are many luminous comets of short period, they must have been produced or acquired at some time when other members of the system, the planets and the satellites, were already in their places.
A theory has been offered that once the solar system moved through a nebula and obtained its comets there.
Did the sun emit planets by shrinkage or by tide, and comets by explosion?
Did the comets come from interstellar space and were they captured into the solar system by larger planets?
Did the larger planets produce the smaller planets by cleavage, or did they expel the short-period comets from their bodies?
It is admitted that we cannot know the truth about the origin of the planetary and cometary systems billions of years ago.
The problem of the origin and development of the solar system is it suffers from the label ‘speculative.’
It is frequently said that as we were not physically there when the system was formed, we cannot legitimately arrive at any idea as to how it was formed.
Not many thousands of years ago, we are taught by academia, great areas of Europe and North America were covered with mighty glaciers.
Perpetual ice lay not only on the slopes of high mountains, but loaded itself in heavy masses upon continents ranging even to the moderate latitudes.
Where today the Hudson, the Elbe, and the upper Dnieper flow, there were then frozen deserts.
They were like the immense glacier of Greenland that covers that frosty island.
There are signs that a retreat of the glaciers was interrupted by a new massing of ice, and that their borders differed at various times.
Geologists were able to find the boundaries of the glaciers.
Ice moves very slowly, pushing stones before it, and accumulations of stones or moraines remain when the glacier retreats and melts away.
Traces have been found of five or six consecutive displacements of the ice sheet during the Ice Age, or of five or six glacial periods.
Some unknown force repeatedly pushed the ice sheet toward moderate latitudes.
Neither the cause of the ice ages nor the cause of the retreat of the icy desert is known and the time of these retreats is also a matter of much speculation.
Many ideas were offered and guesses made to explain how the glacial epochs originated and why they terminated.
Some supposed that the sun at different times emits more or less heat, which causes periods of heat and cold on the earth; but no evidence that the sun is such a “variable star” was adduced to support this hypothesis.
Others conjectured that cosmic space has warmer and cooler areas, and that when our solar system travels through the cooler areas, ice descends upon latitudes closer to the tropics.
But no physical agents were found responsible for such hypothetical cold and warm areas in space to date and we have sent a great many probes to measure for such.
A few wondered whether the precession of the equinoxes or the slow change in the direction of the terrestrial axis might also cause periodic variations in the climate.
But it was shown that the difference in insolation could not have been great enough to have been responsible for the various glacial ages.
Still others thought to find the answer in the periodic variations in the eccentricity of the ecliptic (terrestrial orbit), with glaciation at the maximal eccentricity.
Some of them supposed that winter in aphelion, the remotest part of the ecliptic, would cause glaciation; and some thought that summer in aphelion would produce that effect.
Some scholars thought about the changes in the position of the terrestrial axis.
If the planet earth is rigid, as it is regarded to be (L. Kelvin), the axis could not have shifted in geological times by more than three degrees (George Darwin); if it were elastic, it could have shifted up to ten or fifteen degrees in a very slow process.
The cause of the ice ages was seen by a few scholars in the decrease of the original heat of the planet; the warm periods between the ice ages were attributed to the heat set free by a hypothetical decomposition of organisms in the strata close to the surface of the ground.
The increase and decrease in the action of warm springs were also considered.
Others supposed that dust of volcanic origin filled the terrestrial atmosphere and hindered insolation, or, contrariwise, that an increased content of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere obstructed the reflection of heat rays from the surface of the planet.
A decrease in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would cause a fall of temperature (Arrhenius), but calculations were made to show that this could not be the real cause of the glacial ages (Ångström).
Changes in the direction of warm currents in the Atlantic Ocean were brought into the discussion, and the Isthmus of Panama was theoretically removed to allow the Gulf Stream to pass into the Pacific at the time of the glacial periods. But it was proved that the two oceans were already divided in the Ice Age; besides, a part of the Gulf Stream would have remained in the Atlantic anyway.
The periodic retreats of ice between the glacial periods would have required periodic removal and replacement of the Isthmus of Panama.
Other theories of equally hypothetical nature were proposed but the phenomena held responsible for the changes have not been proven to have existed, or to have been able to produce the effect.
All the above-mentioned theories and hypotheses fail if they cannot meet a most important condition: In order for ice masses to have been formed, increased precipitation must have taken place.
This requires a vastly increased amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, which is the result of increased evaporation from the surface of oceans but this could be caused by heat only.
A number of scientists pointed out this fact, and even calculated that in order to produce a sheet of ice as large as that of the Ice Age, the surface of all the oceans must have evaporated to a depth of a few feet.
Such an evaporation of oceans followed by a quick process of freezing, even in moderate latitudes, would have produced the ice ages.
The problem is: What could have caused the evaporation and immediate subsequent freezing?
As the cause of such quick alternation of heating and freezing of large parts of the globe is not apparent, it is conceded that “at present the cause of excessive ice-making on the lands remains a baffling mystery, a major question for the future reader of earth’s riddles.”
Not only are the causes of the appearance and later disappearance of the glacial sheet unknown, but the geographical shape of the area covered by ice is also a rather difficult problem.
Why did the glacial sheet, in the southern hemisphere, move from the tropical regions of Africa toward the south polar region and not in the opposite direction, and, similarly, why, in the northern hemisphere, did the ice move in India from the equator toward the Himalaya mountains and the higher latitudes?
Why did the glaciers of the Ice Age cover the greater part of North America and Europe, while the north of Asia remained free?
In America the plateau of ice stretched up to latitude 40 ° and even passed across this line while in Europe it reached latitude 50 °; while northeastern Siberia, above the polar circle, even above latitude 75 °, was not covered with this perennial ice.
All hypotheses regarding increased and diminished insolation due to solar alterations or the changing temperature of the cosmic space, and other similar hypotheses, cannot avoid being confronted with this problem.
Glaciers are formed in the regions of eternal snow; for this reason they remain on the slopes of the high mountains. The north of Siberia is the coldest place in the world.
Why did the Ice Age not touch this region, whereas it visited the basin of the Mississippi and all Africa south of the equator?
No satisfactory solution to this question has been proposed to date.
The planet earth has a stony shell –the lithosphere and it consists of igneous rock, like granite and basalt, with sedimentary rock on top.
The igneous rock is the original crust of the earth whereas sedimentary rock is deposited by water.
The inner composition of the earth is not known.
The propagation of seismic waves gives support to the assumption that the shell of the earth is over 2,000 miles thick and on the basis of the gravitational effect of mountain masses (the theory of isostasy), the shell is estimated to be only sixty miles thick.
The presence of iron in the shell or the migration of heavy metals from the core to the shell has not been sufficiently explained either by the way.
For these metals to have left the core, they must have been ejected by explosions, and in order to remain spread through the crust, the explosions must have been followed immediately by rapid cooling.
If, in the beginning, the planet was a hot conglomerate of elements, as the nebular as well as the tidal theories assume, then the iron of the globe should have become oxidized and combined with all available oxygen.
For some unknown reason this did not take place and thus the presence of oxygen in the terrestrial atmosphere is totally unexplained and exceedingly freaky to contemplate.
The water of the oceans contains a large amount of soluble sodium chloride which we know as common salt.
Sodium might have come from rocks eroded by rain but rocks are light in chlorine content and the proportion of sodium and chlorine in seawater calls for fifty times more chlorine in the igneous rock than what it actually contains.
The deep strata of igneous rock contains no signs of fossil life. Zero, Zilch, Nada..
Encased in sedimentary rock are skeletons of marine and land animals, often in many layers stacked one upon the other.
Not infrequently, igneous rock is found protruding into sedimentary rock or even covering it over large areas, pointing to successive eruptions of igneous rock that became heated and molten after there was life on the earth.
Upon strata which show no signs of fossil life are strata containing shells, and sometimes the shells are so numerous as to constitute the entire mass of the rock.
They are also often found in the hardest rock.
Higher strata contain skeletons of land animals, often of extinct species, and not infrequently, above the strata with the remains of land animals are other strata with marine fauna.
The species of the animals, and even their genera, change with the strata.
The strata often assumes an oblique position, sometimes being almost vertical; frequently they are faulted and overturned in many ways.
Cuvier (1769 –1832), the founder of vertebrate paleontology, or the science of petrified skeletons of animals possessing vertebrae, from fish to man, was much impressed by the picture presented by the sequence of the layers of earth.
“When the traveller passes over these fertile plains where gently flowing streams nourish in their course an abundant vegetation, and where the soil, inhabited by a numerous population, adorned with flourishing villages, opulent cities, and superb monuments, is never disturbed, except by the ravages of war, or by the oppression of the powerful, he is not led to suspect that Nature also has had her intestine wars, and that the surface of the globe has been broken up by revolutions and catastrophes.
But his ideas change as soon as he digs into that soil which now presents so peaceful an aspect.” Cuvier thought that great catastrophes had taken place on this earth, repeatedly changing sea beds into continents and continents into sea beds.
He held that genera and species were unchangeable since Creation; but, observing different animal remains in various levels of earth, he concluded that catastrophes must have annihilated life in vast areas, leaving the ground for other forms of life.
Where did these other genera come from?
Either they were newly created or, more likely they migrated from other parts of the world, which were not at that time also visited by cataclysms.
He could not find the cause of these cataclysms.
He saw in their traces “the problem in geology it is of most importance to solve,” but he realized that “in order to resolve it satisfactorily, it would be necessary to discover the cause of these events –an undertaking which presents a difficulty of quite a different kind.”
He knew only of “many futile attempts” already made and he did not find himself able to offer any solution. “These ideas have haunted, I may almost say have tormented me during my researches among fossil bones .”
Cuvier’s theory of stabilized forms of life and of annihilating catastrophes was supplanted by a theory of evolution in geology (Lyell) and biology (Darwin).
The mountains they say are what is left of plateaus eroded by wind and water in a very slow process.
Sedimentary rock is detritus of igneous rock eroded by rain, then carried to sea, and there slowly deposited.
Skeletons of birds and of land animals in these rocks are presumed to have belonged to animals that waded close to the shore of the sea in shallow water, died while wading, and were covered by sediment before fish destroyed the cadavers or the water separated the bones of their skeletons.
No widespread catastrophes disrupted the slow and steady process they claim.
The theory of evolution, which can be traced to Aristotle, and which was the teaching of Lamarck in the days of Cuvier and of Darwin after him, has been generally accepted as truth by natural sciences for almost a hundred years.
Sedimentary rock covers high mountains and the highest of all, the Himalayas.
Shells and skeletons of sea animals are found there.
This means that at some early time fish swam over these mountains. What caused the mountains to rise?
A force pushing from within or pulling from without or twisting on the sides must have elevated the mountains and lifted continents from the bottom of the sea and submerged other land masses.
If we do not know what these forces are, we cannot answer the problem of the origin of the mountains and of continents, wherever on the globe we are faced with it.
Here is how the question is put concerning the eastern coast of North America.
Not long ago in a geological sense, the flat plain from New Jersey to Florida was under the sea.
At that time the ocean surf broke directly on the Old Appalachian Mountains.
Previously the southeastern part of the mountain structure had sunk below the sea and become covered with a layer of sand and mud, thickening seaward.
The wedgelike mass of marine sediments was then uplifted and cut into by rivers, giving the Atlantic coastal plain of the United States.
Why was it uplifted?
To the westward are the Appalachians.
The geologist tells us of the stressful times when a belt of rocks extending from Alabama to Newfoundland was jammed, thrust together, to make this mountain system.
How was it done?
In former times the sea flooded the region of the great plains from Mexico to Alaska, and then withdrew.
Why this change?
The birth of the Cordilleras –“again the mystery of mountain-making clamors for solution.”
And so on all over the world.
The Himalayas were under the sea at one time.....