A crescent moon hangs above a
small lake a summer afternoon. Everybody is out and about, and nobody is paying
much attention to the moon. It hangs above us as it always does every so many
hours, and no one finds that mysterious in any way.
However, a large dragonfly with
a wingspan of some 12 centimetres is moving swiftly across the lake [Dragonfly:
Epiaeschna Heros]. And this spectacle draws our attention. It is quite
incredible how it moves, one moment one way, the other moment another way.
For an insect, it is a giant,
and it seems a small wonder that its wafer thin wings do not break under the
strain of its aeronautic manoeuvrings. Surely, we think to ourselves, this must
be as large as dragonflies get. And we are quite right in thinking so. The very
largest dragonflies on our planet have a wing span of 19 centimetres [Dragonfly:
Megaloprepus Caerulatus], and they have a peculiarly thin body relative to their
wings, for the simple reason that they have reached the very upper limit to how
large dragonflies can get. Any additional increase in their size would make them
unable to do the manoeuvring required to feed themselves.
Yet, when we research the
matter, we learn that some 300 million years ago, there were dragonflies with
wing spans of 65 centimetres [Dragonfly: Meganeura]. That is more than five
times the wing span of the dragonfly at the lake. And the odd thing is that the
shape of the prehistoric dragonflies was identical to that of current ones, so
they must have had the exact same manoeuvring skills and function as their
modern day descendants.
However, shapes do not scale
well in the natural world. There is a limit to how large a given shape can
become before it no longer manages to support itself. As animals become larger,
their supporting structures must scale up.
A bird has relatively much
stronger wings than an insect because insect wings would not be able to support
an animal the size of a bird. Yet, the giant dragonfly from 300 million years
ago flew without any problems despite being the size of a seagull.
Not only must the giant
dragonfly have been able to fly, it must have been able to hunt as well. It must
have been able to do all the things that its much smaller descendants do today
in order to survive. Yet its wings were so thin and flimsy that it is an
impossibility that it could have done any of the aeronautics required. In fact,
it seems unlikely that the animal could even have gotten off the ground.
From fossil records, it appears
that an impossible animal once existed on our planet, and this fact, if not
ignored, leads us onto a curious journey as we seek to explain the evidence
Since impossibilities do not
exist in nature, there must be something wrong with one or more of our
presumptions, and the foremost of these is our conviction that shapes do not
scale well in the natural world. Why are we so certainty that the giant
dragonfly could not even get off the ground? On what evidence is such a
Besides the example of birds
having stronger wings than insects, do we have other examples to support the
idea that we cannot simply scale up a dragonfly by a factor of five and see it
manoeuvre as effortlessly as its smaller self?
Spiders, for example, come in a
wide range of sizes. Do the bigger ones look noticeably different from the
smaller ones? Can we by just comparing the shape of a large and a small spider,
accurately determine which is the larger one?
Well, we can. Small spiders have
relatively thinner legs compared to their bodies than the bigger ones. Small
spiders have sometimes quite bulky bodies that they carry around on very thin
legs, while big spiders have much more robust legs compared to their bodies.
Comparing a picture of a small
spider with an equally large picture of a big spider, we have no trouble
determining which is which. The relative strength and thickness of their legs is
all we need to determine which of them is the biggest.
Similarly, among mammals we see
the same pattern. The African Elephant is very bulky and solid, while the
gazelle is slim and delicate. Gazelles jump about without any problems while
elephants cannot jump. If they did, their bones would be crushed. Elephants move
very carefully and deliberately because their size is at the limit of what can
Some large animals are fairly
slender, such as the giraffe and the elk, but the truly swift and delicate
animals are never very large. And the maths behind this pattern is very simple.
As a shape increases in size, its volume, and therefore weight, increases by the
cube of that increase while the strength of its structure only increase by the
square [Ref: Stephen Hurrell].
The weight of a structure
increases faster than its strength when we scale it up. That is why we cannot
build stone bridges larger than a certain size. It is also the reason we cannot
build masonry buildings higher than a certain height.
To go beyond the limits of
masonry, we have to build with materials that are stronger and lighter than
stone. To build a skyscraper we use a lot of steel, and very little else.
Bridges spanning wide waterways are always suspension bridges because they have
the highest strength to weight ratio.
Shapes do not scale well in the
natural world. This is both an observable fact, and a principle in civil
engineering. Yet the giant dragonfly 300 million years ago had the exact same
shape as its much smaller descendants. The supporting structure of the giant
dragonfly was in no way scaled up in order to carry its weight. For some reason,
there was no need to reinforce its wings.
The giant dragonfly was 5 times
bigger than the largest dragonflies of the exact same shape that we have today.
That means that it had a structure 25 times stronger while its mass was 125
This again means that the
present day version of the ancient giant should be able to carry 4 times their
own weight, and still function reasonably well. But if we hang such a load onto
a dragonfly, it does not get off the ground. Its shape is clearly not designed
to carry such a load.
Some people will argue that the
giant prehistoric dragonfly flew around in a more oxygen rich environment and
that it was therefore able to produce more thrust. But our problem is not about
thrust. Our problem is with the shape of the animal. More thrust would not give
it a stronger structure. It would merely allow it to tear itself apart as it
tries to lift a weight that is way too heavy for it.
Explaining the Impossible
The fact of the matter is that
our presumption about shapes is correct both in theory and through observation.
Shapes do not scale well in nature. If we have made an erroneous presumption, it
is not this one.
Let us therefore go on to the
next big presumption in our story, namely that gravity today is identical to
what it was some 300 million years ago. If gravity was less by a factor of five
back in the days of the giant dragonflies, their size would no longer be a
If we could turn gravity down to
a mere 20 percent of what it is today, the dragonfly that we burdened with a
weight 4 times its own mass would suddenly have no trouble taking off.
This is a simple mathematical
fact. A dragonfly that can carry its own weight today would have no trouble
carrying its own weight plus an additional four times its own mass, provided
gravity was reduced by a corresponding factor of five.
If gravity is reduced by a
factor of five, then every living thing will be able to support five times its
current mass without noticing any difference.
And this possibility that
gravity has increased over time would solve several other size and shape related
mysteries as well.
Some 150 million years ago, long
necked dinosaurs roamed the earth [Dinosaur: Brontosaurus]. They were enormous,
measuring 22 metres from head to tail and 4.6 metres from the ground to their
From fossil footprints we see
that these huge animals moved about in much the same way elephants move today,
and they did not drag their enormous tail behind them. They had no trouble
holding their heads high, and their tails off the ground. Yet, a modern elephant
would not even have reached these giants to their hips.
From simple size comparisons, we
can deduce that the largest long neck dinosaurs were some 8 times more massive
than present day elephants, while their structure could only have been about 4
And if we cut through a dinosaur
bone to see if there may be something about these bones to suggest that they
were unusually strong, we find no such evidence. If anything, elephant bones are
denser and stronger per volume than dinosaur bones. And the overall structure of
an elephant, having no big tail nor long neck, is much more robust than that of
the long necked dinosaurs. Yet the dinosaurs walked about quite effortlessly.
The only two ways to explain
this are that the dinosaurs were either made in a super strong manner, for which
there is no evidence, or they were somehow less affected by gravity. And if they
were less affected by gravity, then the most immediate conclusion we can draw is
that gravity was weaker back in their days.
In fact, all dinosaurs appear to
have been too large to function optimally. Comparing the various types of
dinosaurs with comparably shaped animals today, we see that the dinosaurs seem
to have existed in an environment where gravity was less than it is today by at
least half [Ref: Stephen Hurrell]. And the most astonishing example of a
dinosaur that cannot be reconciled with today's gravity is without a doubt the
giant flying dinosaurs that appeared some 100 million years ago.
Some 50 million years after the
long necked dinosaurs went extinct, and a full 200 million years after the giant
dragonflies disappeared, dinosaurs the size and shape of small jet airplanes
took to the skies [Dinosaur: Quetzalcoatlus]. They had large, elongated heads,
long necks and a wingspan of almost 16 metres. When they roamed about on the
ground, they were as tall as present day giraffes. Yet today the largest flying
animal with a similar shape to that of the flying dinosaurs is the swan, with a
maximum wingspan of about 3 metres. That is less than one fifth of the wingspan
of the flying dinosaurs.
Following the same logic we used
for the giant dragonfly, we arrive at a gravity of a mere 20 percent of what we
have today. However, swans and flying dinosaurs are not as similar in shape as
present day dragonflies are compared to their giant ancestors. The flying
dinosaurs may well have employed a special flying technique which allowed them
to operate at higher gravity than a mere 20 percent. What remains certain,
though, is that all dinosaurs appear to have lived under a weaker gravity than
what we have today.
And when the dinosaurs finally
went extinct some 66 million years ago it did not take long before giant mammals
appeared, much larger than today's elephants. Yet they too have gone extinct.
This often overlooked fact
indicates that animals have a tendency to reach their maximum size limit rather
quickly only to be overwhelmed by a relentless increase in gravity that forces
them either to become smaller or face extinction.
When there has been a mass
extinction event, like there was 66 million years ago, it is followed by a race
among the surviving species to become as big as possible as quickly as possible.
And this can be explained rather easily by pointing out the advantage of being
big. Natural selection rewards animals that manage to grow very large with a
generous lack of natural predators. The African elephant for instance has no
natural predators. They are simply too large even for a flock of lions.
However, evidence from fossil
records suggest that there is only one evolutionary path forward for today's
elephants. They must become smaller. Unless gravity has stopped growing
stronger, all land giants must grow smaller over time. And this leads us to our
Is there any evidence to suggest
that gravity is still growing stronger? Do we have any indication that gravity
is changing as we speak?
Well, the answer is yes. We do
have evidence that suggests that our immediate future will give us slightly
stronger gravity than we have today while our immediate past had slightly weaker
gravity. And this evidence is provided to us by no lesser an authority on the
subject than NASA.
NASA has done a thorough
investigation into what is known as gravity anomalies, and they have produced a
detailed map of where gravity is stronger than what standard theory predicts and
where gravity is weaker than predicted. Our whole planet has been mapped, and
the results are very interesting.
Wherever there is geological
activity, gravity tends to be stronger than predicted, and wherever there is
little or no geological activity, gravity tends to be weaker than predicted. The
more active an area is, the stronger the gravity is relative to theory. The more
dormant an area is, the weaker the gravity is relative to theory.
Areas like the Tibetan Plateau
which have been geologically dormant for a very long time are the areas with the
weakest gravity. Very active areas like Iceland and the Himalayas on the other
hand have the strongest gravity.
The anomalies are small but
distinct. Even if minute in absolute terms, there is no doubt that there is a
strong correlation between geological activity and gravitational strength. And
this leads us to an interesting hypothesis.
If geologically active areas are
where the future conditions of our planet are made, as seems reasonable to
assume, and geologically passive areas are places that lag behind geologically,
then we can read into the gravity anomaly map a prediction about the future and
a history of our past.
Taking the Tibetan Plane to
represent the past and the Himalayas and Iceland to represent the future, we see
that gravity is growing stronger. And the process that drives this change
forward is geological activity. Not only do we have evidence from fossil records
that suggest that gravity was significantly weaker millions of years ago, we
also have evidence from present day readings of gravity anomalies that suggest
that gravity is still growing stronger.
However, this is in no way the
standard interpretation of the above mentioned facts. According to standard
textbook physics, gravity is a constant force, depending only on the mass of two
bodies and the distance between their centre of mass. The only two ways surface
gravity could have increased according to the standard model, is if our planet
has become more massive or if it is shrinking in diameter [Physics: Newton's Law
of Universal Gravity].
If surface gravity has increased
due to an increase in mass, this would affect the moon, pulling it closer to us.
And since we have observational evidence that our moon is receding from us at
the rate of a few centimetres per year, we can flatly reject the added mass
theory on the basis of the standard model and observational facts.
That leaves us with a shrinking
earth as our only alternative within the framework of the standard model. Yet
there is no evidence anywhere to suggest that our planet is shrinking, and there
does not even exist any plausible theory as to how this could happen. If the
mass of our planet has been constant over time, then pressures inside our planet
would be constant too, and no significant compacting could be happening.
The conclusion based on the
standard model is therefore that surface gravity of our planet is constant, and
has been constant since forever. Any suggestion that gravity may have been a
mere 20 percent of what it is today can be dismissed as pure nonsense.
As for the geological evidence
that seems to indicate an ongoing process of increased strength in gravity, the
standard interpretation is that the observed anomalies are due to compacting of
mass in geologically active areas. The Himalayas have stronger than average
gravity because enormous pressures are pushing the mountains up, compacting
matter, making it more dense and therefore gravitationally stronger. Similarly,
Iceland and the entire Mid Atlantic rift is created through enormous pressures
pushing the Atlantic Ocean apart. Areas such as the Tibetan Plane where less
compacting is occurring have relatively weak gravity.
Our thesis can easily be
dismissed and explained away on the basis that it violates the standard model of
gravity. However, giant dragonflies with wingspans of 65 centimetres really did
fly around some 300 million years ago, and dinosaurs with a wingspan of 16
metres took to the skies some 100 million years ago. And there is absolutely no
way these creatures could fly around today.
It appears, therefore, that
evidence is flying in the face of the standard model. And for this reason, much
effort has gone into proving that these creatures are not as fantastic and
impossible as they appear. However, every attempt at building true to scale
working models of the impossible creatures has so far failed, and it seems for
that reason alone quite reasonable to conclude that the giant animals of the
past really are impossible creatures and that something must have been very
different back in their time.
A Buoyant Atmosphere?
But if we exclude gravity as an
option, very few options are open to us as far as explanations go. In fact,
there appears to be only one explanation left for us to explore, namely that our
atmosphere must have been much more buoyant in prehistoric times. Counteracting
the crushing force of gravity, the atmosphere must have provided enough buoyancy
to reduce the effect of gravity by the required amount [Ref: David Esker].
Much like fish swim in the sea,
giant dragonflies and flying dinosaurs were practically floating in the highly
buoyant atmosphere. Very little effort was required to take to the skies. And
the long necked dinosaurs had more than half their weight compensated for by
On the face of it, this seems
like an elegant way through our impasse. However, for the atmosphere to have had
the required buoyancy to reduce the effect of gravity by half, the air pressure
must have been a staggering 500 times what it is today [Physics: Boyle's Law].
Adding volume to our atmosphere
cannot produce this kind of pressure. Even if our atmosphere reached all the way
to the moon, air pressure at the surface would not have gone up nearly as much
as required. Only a vastly stronger gravity could have produced the necessary
pressure. But that would not only cancel the positive effect of added buoyancy
many times over, it would also make the whole argument circular and
self-defeating. After all, the purpose of the buoyancy theory was to avoid a
change in gravity. Bringing gravity back into the story leads us nowhere.
What appeared to have been a
reasonable way through the impasse turns out to be nothing but a dead end.
And so we arrive at a point
where we must either dismiss the evidence before us as somehow irrelevant, or
accept the possibility that the standard model of gravity may not be entirely
The standard model tells us that
gravity at the surface of our planet cannot have increased without either our
planet shrinking or our moon coming closer to us. Yet we have evidence
suggesting that gravity has increased without our planet shrinking, and we know
for a fact that our moon is receding from us. Available evidence indicates a
rather glaring disconnect between the standard model and the observed facts. And
so we continue our investigation.
Having shown quite clearly that
the shape and size of prehistoric animals strongly suggest a lower gravity, we
turn our attention back to our other, less thoroughly analysed observation that
gravity is generally stronger in geologically active areas than standard theory
predicts. What further clues do those areas contain? What exactly is going on?
Mountains and Subduction
According to standard geological
theory, the tall mountains of the Himalayas have been produced by the
subcontinent of India pushing itself under the Eurasian continent. And likewise,
the Andes Mountains are the result of the tectonic plate of the Pacific Ocean
pushing itself down and under South America.
Iceland and the rest of the Mid
Atlantic rift, on the other hand, is pushing America away from Europe and
From Fossil and geological
records, we know that India once was connected to East Africa and Madagascar
[Geology: Gondwana], and standard theory has it that India drifted north from
this position until it reached the Eurasian continent [Geology: Laurasia] where
it proceeded to drift in and down under the larger continental plate in a
process called subduction. Enormous forces are at work, and evidence for this
should no doubt abound.
There should be a clearly
visible wake of the subcontinents journey across the ocean floor, and there
should be huge piles of rock and dirt by the foothills of the Himalayas where
the subcontinent's soft upper layers are being scraped off as it submerges in
under the Eurasian continent.
However, there is no wake left
on the ocean floor, and there are no piles of dirt and gravel at the foothills
of the Himalayas.
What we find is a continental
rift separating East Africa from India, indicating that India not only made its
move without leaving a wake, it also managed to cross a continental rift without
leaving any marks.
While there is plenty of
evidence to suggest that India really did lie next to East Africa and
Madagascar, we do not find any clear evidence for India's voyage across the
The standard explanation for the
lack of immediately recognizable evidence is that the dirt and gravel at the
foothills of the Himalayas are being continuously eroded and washed away by
weather and the Ganges river. And the continental rift that we have pointed out
in the middle of the Indian Ocean is the wake that we have been looking for.
Rather than a ship's wake drawn out like a line behind India, we have a rift to
prove that things have been and still are moving.
The evidence before us, although
not immediately clear, can be used to support the theory that India has drifted
from East Africa to where it is today, and that India is pushing its way down
and under the Eurasian plate. However, when it comes to the Andes, there is in
fact no evidence for subduction. Rather, the opposite appears to be happening.
New landmass is being produced and pushed out into the Pacific.
The age of the sea floor to the
west of the Andes is very young, while the age of the Andes and the continental
landmass to its east is thousands of millions of years old. And as we move away
from the Andes, out into the ocean, we see that the landmass is older the
farther away we go from the continent. The so called Ring of Fire, which lines
the west coast of both North and South America appears to be producing landmass.
The volcanoes lining the west
coast of the two continents are supposed to be evidence of subduction, but are
in actual fact evidence of landmass production. Wherever we have volcanoes, we
see new landmass in their vicinity, either to both sides, such as along the Mid
Atlantic rift, or to one side such as along the Ring of Fire. And quite
interestingly, no sea floor anywhere is more than 180 million years old, which
is very young compared to the 4000 million years typical for continental
Oceans are far younger than
continents, and it appears that something very significant happened some 180
million years ago. After thousands of millions of years of very little
geological activity, things started to change. Oceans appeared. New landmass was
suddenly being produced.
It appears that our planet
started to expand. And the evidence for this is quite overwhelming.
An Expanding Earth?
If we build a model of our
planet as it currently is, and then remove the sea floors, the result yields a
globe half the diameter of our current planet, where all the landmasses fit
together neatly, leaving virtually no cracks or rifts [Ref: Neal Adams]. Quite
astonishingly, we see that all the continents fit together onto the smaller
globe with no big cracks or missing landmass anywhere.
Furthermore, we see that all the
big inland mountain ranges disappear as we fold the continents to fit the
smaller globe. India has to be pushed down, and when we do this the Himalayas
smooth out and disappear. When we push Italy down, the Alps smooth out and
disappear. When we push Iberia down, the Pyrenees smooth out and disappear. When
we push down the west coast of North America, the Rockies smooth out and
disappear. And the Andes smooth out too as the edge of the South American
continent is pushed down to fit the smaller globe [Ref: James Maxlow].
Reversing this process, starting
with a single smooth planet as it was 180 million years ago, with only shallow
lakes and low hills, we see mountains rise where the continents crack as they
are forced onto a larger globe. The Himalayas rise where Eurasia cracks as the
Indian subcontinent is pushed up. The Alps rise where Eurasia cracks as Italy is
pushed up. The Pyrenees appear where Eurasia cracks as Iberia is pushed up. The
Rocky Mountains appear where North America cracks as its west coast is pushed
up. And the Andes appear where South America cracks as its west coast is pushed
An expanding planet explains
perfectly all the observed facts. Oceans are rifts formed by expansion of our
planet, and the only mystery as far as the result is concerned is the salt water
of the oceans which for some reason has filled the rifts perfectly, neither
flooding the old landmass, nor leaving any ocean floor dry. However, this too is
relatively easy to explain because our planet contains plenty of water and
plenty of salt. Entire oceans of water have recently been detected deep below
the crust, and huge salt domes are also known to be embedded deep inside the
crust of our planet.
Our planet resembles in many
ways a sponge with a dry surface, saturated with water. When pulled and
stretched, the stretched areas are immediately filled with water. The water
comes up to the surface, but only where the sponge is stretched. Water will not
flood the areas that do not experience any stretching. The presence of salt
water filling the ocean floors exactly is in other words precisely what we would
expect for an expanding planet full of embedded water.
And so we have a workable
alternative to the standard geological model of our planet. Instead of a fixed
sized planet on which continents drift willy-nilly around, with no clear purpose
or direction, we have an expanding planet, with salt water filling the rifts as
With an expanding planet, we
have no trouble explaining how India lost contact with East Africa, and we have
no trouble explaining mountain ranges, both volcanic and non-volcanic. Also, the
young age of the sea floor west of South America is no longer a problem since
the rift along its west coast is an expansion area. The theory of subduction can
be disregarded. Continents do not drift, and they do not dip in under other
continents. Instead, the planet as a whole is expanding, forcing continents
apart in the process.
And so we arrive at another
juncture where we either have to reject the evidence as wrongly interpreted or
somehow flawed, or go along with what it seems to be telling us.
Not only have we come to the
conclusion that there is something not quite right about the standard model of
gravity, we have come to the conclusion that an expanding planet corresponds
better with available evidence than does the standard geological model of a
fixed size planet.
Not only did the giant animals
of the past roam around in an environment where gravity was less strong than it
is today, our planet back then was considerably smaller. The evidence speaks
very much in favour of such an interpretation, and if we accept this as a real
possibility, then it seems reasonable to suggest that there must be a link
between the increase in the size of our planet and the increase in its
If we can figure out why our
planet is expanding, we may also find out what gravity is and how it works. Our
next logical step is therefore to investigate the two possible mechanisms that
can explain the expansion.
There may be a whole range of
things going on, causing our planet to expand. However, only two broad
mechanisms exist, one being an accumulation of matter by our planet, and the
other being an expansion without matter being added.
In the case of accumulation, we
have the two possibility that matter is accumulated from outside of our planet,
and the alternative that matter is being created inside our planet.
In the case of no accumulation
of matter, we have the possibility that pressure of some kind is being generated
inside our planet, and the possibility that some external force is generating
While the mass accumulation
model can be likened to filling a balloon with water, the pressure model can be
likened to a water filled balloon being heated so that steam pressure is
produced. In both cases, there will be expansion. However, only the mass
accumulation model requires a significant addition of matter. The pressure model
requires only that existing liquids inside our planet turn to gas.
But there is no known mechanism
to produce matter out of nothing, and there is very little to suggest that our
planet can have accumulated sufficient matter over 180 million years to support
an expansion. There is simply not nearly enough space dust and other external
matter falling onto our planet to explain the expansion that has taken place.
For our planet to have expanded
to twice its original diameter, a volume 7 times the original matter would have
to be added, presumably as dense as the original matter. That's an awful lot of
space dust. And then there is the mystery of why this process did not start
before 180 million years ago. Our planet is after all 4000 million years old, so
why was it unaffected by space dust for 3820 million years prior to the start of
Furthermore, the accumulation
theory suffers from another big drawback. The accumulation, presumably still
ongoing, must be taking place deep below the surface of our planet, or there
would be no expansion, only growth. The oceans of our planet have arisen from
pressures inside our planet. The surface of our planet has cracked and expanded
into oceans. Had matter simply fallen onto the surface of our planet, there
would be no cracks and no oceans.
And this leads us to conclude
that the accumulation model can only explain what we see if matter either
manages to bore itself deep into our planet, for which there is absolutely no
evidence, or if matter is created from nothing inside our planet, for which
there is no theoretical or observational backing.
The accumulation theory requires
us to embrace completely new and unheard of mechanisms that for inexplicable
reasons lay dormant for thousands of millions of years before suddenly springing
into action 180 million years ago. The accumulation theories are riddled with
mysteries, and therefore not something we want to embrace without giving the
other possibility a good hearing.
The alternative to the
accumulation theory is that liquids inside our planet have turned to gas, and
that pressures inside our planet became so large some 180 million years ago that
the surface cracked, starting an expansion process that is still ongoing to this
date [Ref: Peter Woodhead].
This gas expansion theory holds
that until 180 million years ago, the core of our planet was not yet hot enough
to produce the required pressure for expansion, hence the lack of expansion
prior to that time. And more importantly, it has the advantage that it does not
require any novel mechanism to explain the pressures below the surface. Since we
already know that there is a lot of water locked inside our planet, it is only
to be expected that this water will produce pressure if heated.
Furthermore, we have direct
evidence that our planet may have a gas filled core. Seismic data from
earthquakes make more sense when interpreted in the light of a hollow earth
model than when interpreted based on a solid earth model [Ref: Jan Lamprecht]. A
whole host of problems related to seismic data and how to interpret them simply
vanish if we assume a hollow rather than solid planet.
And farther afield there is
evidence to suggest that stars are hollow too. Some stars have dramatically
changed their size in as little as a few decades [Astronomy: Variable Stars].
This strongly suggests that stars are like bubbles, able to expand and contract
over relatively short time periods.
The fact that stars can rapidly
change their size can only be explained in two ways. Either the corona of these
stars change in size, making them merely appear to vary in size, or the stars do
in fact change.
If stars are solid to the core,
then only the coronal explanation can be used. But if stars are hollow, then a
change in size corresponding to a change in temperature is exactly what we would
Since we know from observing our
own sun that stars have a liquid surface [Ref: Goran Mitic], we can assume that
stars are highly elastic and therefore able to inflate and deflate rapidly under
changing conditions. Rather than being solid balls of matter, stars may in fact
be hot bubbles of liquid magma, able to expand and contract over short periods
There is in other words quite a
lot of evidence to suggest that planets and stars may be hollow and not solid to
the core, and the only reason this idea is flat out rejected by most people is
that it violates the standard model of gravity.
According to the standard model,
surface gravity will fall if the diameter of our planet increased without matter
being added, and the pressures at the centre of our planet are so great that no
liquid can turn to gas. However, we have already pointed out that there seems to
be something not quite right about the standard model, so this criticism does
not deter us. Rather the opposite is the case. The critics may in fact have
pointed out where the flaw in the standard model is hidden.
One of the main underlying
assumptions of the standard model is that gravity is a monopole at the atomic
level, meaning that it acts equally in all directions and is always attracting.
And it is from this assumption that we get that gravity must fall if the
diameter of our planet increases. It also dictates that pressures at the centre
of our planet must be enormous [Maths: Newton's Shell Theorem].
However, if gravity is not a
monopole at the atomic level, things become quite different. In such a case,
surface gravity may well increase with expansion, and the geometrical centre of
planets are not the location of maximum pressure.
If gravity is something other
than a monopole, the pressures at the centre of planets are determined by the
internal pressure of whatever gas or vapour is located there, and a steam
powered expansion is not only possible, but quite likely, especially for large
objects [Ref: Fredrik Nygaard].
Furthermore, all the evidence
pertaining to the surface of our planet can be explained using such a model. It
explains the large size of prehistoric animals and how our planet may be
What the evidence suggests is
that gravity is a force that increases, not with an increase in mass, but with
redistribution of matter and physical expansion. Fossil records suggest an
increase in the strength of gravity during the period leading up to the start of
planetary expansion some 180 million years ago, and an accelerating increase in
strength during the expansion period we are currently in.
With our planet doubling its
diameter, gravity has gone up by at least 100 percent. For this to have
happened, assuming a gas powered expansion, the shell of our planet must have
thinned considerably. Yet gravity has increased. And herein lies the clue to
what might be causing gravity, because there is a very common phenomenon that
behaves this way exactly.
Capacitance and Gravity
Electrical capacitance, the
ability of a body to hold charge, increases as a body becomes thinner. So if the
shell of our planet has become thinner, its capacitance must have increased.
Even before the expansion
process began, our planet's capacitance is likely to have increased, because
capacitance increases not only with expansion, but also with any redistribution
of matter to its benefit. Internal redistribution of matter as the frozen core
melted is likely to have increased our planet's capacitance.
Our planet's capacitance is very
likely to have increased significantly over the last 300 million years. A factor
of 5 is certainly within reason, because capacitance increases exponentially
with size and distribution of matter. A large thin crust has much more
capacitance than a smaller thicker crust [Physics: Spherical Capacitors].
Capacitance is a dipole
phenomenon that perfectly matches the apparent behaviour of gravity.
Redistribution of internal matter prior to the expansion phase of our planet may
well have increased our planet's capacitance by a factor of up to 100 percent,
and the subsequent expansion has no doubt added at least another 100 percent.
This increase in capacitance of
our planet is a sure thing based on well understood physics [Physics: Coulomb's
Law], so there can be no doubt that a planet undergoing a gas powered expansion
will see its capacitance increase significantly. And from observations, it is
reasonable to conclude that our planet is a fully charged capacitor.
Our planet is hooked up to a
current coming from the sun through the auroras visible at the poles [Physics:
Birkeland Currents], and is constantly discharging out into space through
lightning. Lightning is going off more or less continuously, not only between
clouds and the surface of our planet, but also from clouds and up into space.
And there is no reason to believe that this state of affairs has ever been
Our planet is, and has probably
always been, a fully charge capacitor. And its capacitance today is no doubt
much larger than it was in its distant past.
It seems therefore likely that
it is not capacitance in itself that causes gravity, but the charge stored in
the capacitor. And if this is true, we arrive at a very interesting conclusion,
namely that charge in extreme amounts does not only affect other charge, but
also mass. While charge on charge interaction result in well understood
phenomena like electromagnetism, electrostatics and capacitance, there may also
be charge on mass interaction. If so, the charge on mass interaction would be
what we commonly refer to as gravity.
An immediate objection that can
be made to this conclusion is that no interaction between charge and mass has
ever been detected in a laboratory. But the reason for this may simply be that
the amount of charge required to produce a measurable effect would take an
extremely efficient capacitor, possibly the size of a small building, and that
no such capacitor has been tested in a laboratory.
Gravitational Anomalies and
On the other hand, a capacitor
model of gravity would explain more than just the dinosaurs and the expanding
planet. It would also give a reasonable explanation for the before mentioned
As already noted,
gravitationally active areas have stronger gravity than what standard theory
predicts, and it is a big mystery why this is the case. However, if our planet
is in fact a hollow capacitor, then expansion areas such as Iceland would
typically be on thinner crusts than geologically dormant areas such as the
Tibetan Plane. The crust under Iceland would hold more charge than the crust
under Tibet, and gravity measured on Iceland would therefore be stronger.
And the case for the Himalayas
is similar. Although tall, and therefore appearing to be on top of a very thick
crust, the Himalayas, just like all other rock formations, are in fact cracks.
There is no root going down beneath these mountains. There is a crack going up,
and the net effect is that the crust is in fact thinner than average in
mountainous areas such as the Himalayas, Alps, Andes, Rockies and Pyrenees, so
all these areas must therefore have better capacitance.
Geologically active areas are
all relatively thinner than more dormant areas, and this is the reason that both
tall mountains and stretching areas have stronger gravity than standard theory
predicts. What is a mystery for the standard model is no mystery at all in a
capacitor model. Thin capacitors hold more charge than thick ones. Therefore,
thin areas have stronger gravitational fields than thick areas. The hollow
capacitor model fits perfectly the available evidence.
Furthermore, the fact that
gravity is extremely stable, yet virtually impossible to pin down exactly is
also easy to explain with the capacitor model. If gravity is charge acting on
mass, then our planet's gravity is never exactly the same one moment to another
because it is constantly being charged and discharged through auroras and
However, it takes millions of
years to produce a noticeable effect. It is only when we try to measure gravity
with extremely sensitive equipment that we discover that gravity is not very
constant. Very much contrary to what the standard theory assumes, gravity is not
a constant at all, it is constantly changing with the charging and discharging
of our planet.
Planetary and Lunar Orbits
As far as surface gravity goes,
the capacitor model fits the observed evidence perfectly, and encouraged by this
we can now turn our attention to the moon. Can the capacitor model get around
the fact that our moon is receding despite an increase in surface gravity on our
planet? Indeed, can the capacitor model be used at all to explain planetary and
On the face of it, any dipole
model of gravity would predict that two bodies such as our planet and our moon
would repel each other. After all, elementary physics tells us that two
similarly charged surfaces repel each other, and our planet and our moon are
definitely similarly charged.
However, this objection is based
on experience from electrostatics and magnetism where charge is acting on charge
and magnet is acting on magnet. In our proposed capacitor model, charge is
acting on mass. Our planet can therefore pull on the mass of our moon while our
moon simultaneously pulls on the mass of our planet. The net effect is not
Also, the capacitor model opens
for the possibility that gravity between stellar bodies such as our planet and
our moon acts differently from gravity acting on smaller bodies such as
ourselves because smaller bodies will not possess any gravitational pull, while
bigger bodies do. The fact that our moon is receding from us while surface
gravity appears to be increasing may therefore be explained with this model.
The standard model would have
our moon drawn closer to us as surface gravity increases, and a simplistic
dipole model will have our moon ejected out into space. But the capacitor model
where gravity attracts mass while itself caused by something other than mass,
namely charge, holds the promise of a solution to our moon's strange behaviour.
A number of possibilities
emerge. One of them being that gravity acts in a repelling manner between
stellar objects at very short distances and also at very large distances, while
conforming to the standard model over intermediate distances [Ref: Fredrik
Another possibility is that
there is a second force involved in planetary orbits so that all orbits involve
both an attracting and a repelling force.
A repelling force that we know
must exist between our planet and our moon is the electrostatic force. This
follows directly from the fact that both are similarly charged. And if this
force is significant, it may well moderate the way our moon is affected by a
change in surface gravity on our planet.
Other phenomena known to exist
in space are magnetism, capacitance, and electrical currents. Gravity is in
other words far from the only force out there, so there is no reason to reject
the idea that more than one force may be involved in planetary orbits.
And even if we were to assume
gravity to be repelling between stellar bodies, as a simplistic dipole model
would suggest, there are plenty of possibilities.
Curved magnetic fields are known
to produce stable configurations [Physics: Primer Fields]. We also know that
mutually repelling objects will form stable patterns if the space between them
are filled with something that attracts, such as a suitably ionized gas
[Physics: EZ Water].
Auroral activity and the
presence of the earth’s magnetic field show there are complex interactions with
the sun – facts which are not taken into account at all in the standard model of
The fact that everything is
charged and at the same time spinning at very stable rates suggest that there
should be stable electromagnetic side effects.
Even fairly far-fetched
proposals should not be rejected out of hand as there is clearly a lot going on,
much more than the standard model suggests. However, we will not attempt to pick
a winner among the candidates but rather settle on the possibility that there
are two or more forces involved, and that these are in part determined by the
internal distribution of matter and geometrical dimensions of our planet.
From this alone we can conclude
that a change in the geometry of our planet will result in a change in our
moon's orbit. As our planet expands in size, the equilibrium distance to our
moon will be pushed farther away [Ref: Keith Hunter], provided the repelling
force grows in strength a little more rapidly than the attracting force.
A big bonus that comes with a
multi-force model for planetary orbits is that such models predict more stable
orbits than those seen in the standard model.
With only one force responsible
for planetary orbits, as postulated in the standard model, even minuscule
imbalances can cause havoc to orbits. With no counter force to push things back
into order, imbalances remain and add up over time. However, with two forces
acting in opposite directions, things will quickly be pushed back into order
after a disturbance.
If orbits are defined by two
opposing forces, and these forces do not taper off in the exact same manner,
then for every pair of stellar bodies there will be one or more ideal orbiting
distances based on the strength of the forces involved. If there is a
disturbance, pushing the pair closer together, then the repelling force will
push things back into place, and if there is a disturbance pulling the pair
apart, the attracting force will restore the orbit.
However, in a universe ruled by
a single force only, there can be very little stability. Orbits will be easily
disturbed. And as a result, objects will frequently crash into each other and
often be lost to space. However, if we look out to see what is actually going
on, the universe seems to be stable rather than chaotic. Our moon is not pulled
out of its orbit around our planet by the constant pull of our sun. Our planet
is not being pulled out of its orbit by the gravitational pull of nearby
planets. And Saturn's rings display a remarkable ability to self-repair.
Saturn's rings are constantly
disturbed by nearby moons, yet the turbulence created as the moons skirt the
rings are short lived and gone within days, a clear indication that something
other than gravity is acting to keep things in place.
The stability of our solar
system is in itself evidence of a repelling force. However, the repelling force
is so weak that planets have to move at great speeds to maintain their orbits,
and these speeds follow a pattern consistent with the predictions of the
standard model [Physics: Kepler's Third Law].
If the repelling force was
strong, planets and moons would not need to move according to the standard
model. In fact, if the repelling and attracting forces were equally strong, no
motion at all would be required to keep orbits from collapsing.
From observations of our solar
system, we can in other words conclude that the attracting force is by far the
dominant one. However, when observing galaxies and the way they move, it is
clear that there is more going on than just attraction between stars, planets
At the core of spiral galaxies,
stars rotate as if they were glued together into a solid. They act as if the
above mentioned repelling force is very strong. Instead of moving faster the
closer they are to the centre of the galaxy, stars move slower. The repelling
force at the centre must be very strong, allowing the stars to move slower and
hook up with each other to form the appearance of a solid structure.
Galaxies provide compelling
evidence to suggest that orbits are indeed defined by more than one force, and
the natural candidates as to what the other forces may be are the forces related
to electrostatics, magnetism, capacitance, and electrical currents.
We know for a fact that these
forces exist and play a role in defining our environment here on earth.
Electricity is, after all, evident all around. Not only do we have lightning, we
have the auroras at the poles too. But do we have any evidence of electrical
activity between our planet and our moon?
To answer this question, we need
to take a critical look at our moon to see if we can interpret what we see in an
electrical perspective. Clearly, there can be no lightning or aurora on our
moon, because such phenomena require an atmosphere. But an atmosphere is not
required for electrical activity. All that is required is charge in motion. If
there are charged particles on the moon, and these move, then there is current.
Images of both the near side and
far side of the moon are widely available on the web. They vary quite a bit in
sharpness. Some look a little doctored. Others look more like raw pictures.
However, an overall impression can be made.
On the near side of our moon, we
find what appears to be large areas of accumulated dust. There are two quite
visible impact craters with spatter marks, and there are a number of perfectly
round craters located mostly at the poles and towards the sides. The round
craters facing our planet more directly are relatively small and located on what
appears to be low ridges.
The far side on the other hand
is heavily scarred by the round craters seen mostly at the poles and along the
edge on the near side. And there is much less dust. Also, there are no
irregularly shaped craters with spatter marks. The far side looks well hoovered
compared to the near side.
The electrical interpretation of
this is that there must be a current flowing at the far side, taking dust with
it into space, while the near side is shielded. Also, there appears to be more
electrical activity going on at the poles than at the equator, indicating that
our moon has an electrical connection similar to that of our aurora here on
The fact that the near side of
our moon appears to be well shielded compared to the far side can best be
explained by viewing our moon and our planet as a single electrical body, a cone
with the far side of our moon being the pointy end.
Since electrical currents flow
along edges and escape through pointy ends, any electrical currents flowing
along this overall configuration would move towards the far side. The current
would bypassing the near side where dust is allowed to build up, and it would
escape into space at the far side, taking dust with it on its way out into
Some current will escape also at
the near side, typically from ridges that protrude up from the surface. But the
overall current will flow towards the far side.
The craters at the far side of
our moon are by many taken as proof of a violent past with constant bombardments
of meteorites, but this is not a very satisfying explanation because impact
craters tend to be accompanied by spatter marks. There is also no reason to
believe that all impact craters would be round. However, electricity moves in a
twisting fashion. When dust is pulled off from the surface of our moon, it
erodes the area where this happens as it circles around the escape point
[Physics: Birkeland Currents], and the result over time is that the escape
routes become marked by circular craters.
Seen in an electrical
perspective, the abundance of circular craters at the far side of the moon, in
combination with a clear lack of dust, is proof positive that there is a strong
electrical connection between our planet and our moon.
Not only do we have evidence to
suggest that there is an aurora-like activity going on at the poles of our moon,
the evidence suggest that there is also constant discharging going on at the far
And since the effect of both
gravity and electrical charge drop off exponentially in strength with distance,
we can easily demonstrate that a truly minuscule net increase in the repelling
force of our planet could easily have a measurable effect of several centimetres
on our moons orbit [Maths: Inverse Square Law]. Provided that there is more than
one force involved in planetary orbits, and the repelling force grows quicker
than the attracting force when bodies expand, the receding moon ceases to be a
Variable Stars, Planets and
The fact that our moon is
receding from us can easily be reconciled with our theory that gravity has
increased due to improved capacitance of our planet, because other factors have
changed with it, making the overall effect on orbits different from the effect
on the surface of our planet.
And from this we can make the
general prediction that if one or both bodies in an orbital relationship expand,
the orbit will become wider, and that if one or both bodies contract, the orbit
will become smaller. Given that we know of stars that expand and contract
erratically, it would be very interesting to look for planets around these stars
to see if they behave according to this prediction.
Another prediction we can make
is that planets and stars are not in general fixed size objects. Planets will
tend to expand at some point, when their internal pressures overcome their hard
shells. And stars, having a liquid shell will expand and contract in harmony
with their electrical environment. Unstable electrical regions of the universe
will contain stars with unstable dimensions.
Our overall conclusion is that
our planet is not a fixed size body, but an expanding one. And gravity is not a
monopole property of mass, but a dipole property of charge held in capacitors.
Formation of Planets
Furthermore, we have to reject
the standard model of planetary formation that holds that our planet was created
in a lengthy process in which it was a blob of molten lava for millions of
years. Because, if that was the case, how can we explain the enormous quantities
of water trapped deep beneath the surface of our planet? Surely, it must have
evaporated long ago due to the relentless heat.
However, the formation of our
planet cannot have been completely cold either. The crust of our planet is solid
rock which could only have formed through a hot process. And so we are faced
with yet another mystery. How did liquids, and presumably even ice, get trapped
under a mantle of rock?
This question needs to be
answered, not only because of the available data, but because a cold interior,
heating up over time, is central to the capacitor model of gravity.
The capacitor model of gravity
assumes that the core of our planet was frozen gas and water to begin with, and
that matter started to redistribute when this core started to melt. Then, as the
core continued to heat up, liquids turned to gas, pressures rose, and the hard
crust cracked, leading to the expansion period that we are presently in. But
even if we reject the capacitor model of gravity and keep insisting on a fixed
size planet, the existence of water inside our planet needs a plausible
The solid rock crust could not
have formed without heat. Yet the presence of liquids inside our planet require
things to have been cool. So it appears that our planet must have been produced
under very peculiar circumstances. It must have been hot enough for the crust of
our planet to have formed, yet cold enough for plenty of water to have been
trapped inside the crust.
For this to have happened, our
planet must have been produced, not over billions of years, but over an
extremely short period of time, or else the gases and vapours would have
escaped. And the process must have been such that only the crust got heated
beyond the thousands of degrees necessary to melt rock. The interior must have
stayed relatively cold throughout.
And the only mechanism that
could have produced this effect is electricity. Electric currents flow along
surfaces, so if our planet was formed in a highly electrical environment we can
easily imagine the surface of our planet having been heated to many thousands of
degrees while remaining cold internally. At least if this process happened
suddenly and violently.
And there is observational
evidence to suggest that this is in fact how solar systems form [Ref: David
Supernovae, Short Circuits
Bright flashes are observed
quite regularly in the universe [Astronomy: Supernova]. Standard theory has
these flashes associated with the death of stars. But no one has ever observed
an existing star suddenly turning into a supernova. All that is known is that a
star is always found at the location where the flash occurred. And since these
observations are always made after the flash happened, there is nothing to
suggest that the flash is the death of a star. The flash may just as well be
seen as evidence for the creation of a star, quite possibly including planets
The electrical creation theory
presupposes that the universe is awash in electrical activity [Physics: Electric
Universe]. But this is not a radical idea. Large scale magnetic fields are
observed facts, and astronomical observations indicate that stars are
electrically connected to each other. Great rivers of charged particles appear
to flow from one solar system to another [Physics: Birkeland Currents]. Stars
line up like beads on a string, and the overall pattern is that of a huge
electrical circuit, connecting all stars and all galaxies in the universe in a
And if charged particles do fill
the universe in ways that resemble rivers, it seems reasonable to suppose that
such currents short circuit from time to time. And this idea is key to this
alternative planetary creation theory, because a short circuit of such enormous
dimensions as we are talking about would in fact create a truly gigantic spark.
We would observe a great big
flash, and in the aftermath, we should be able to observe a star and a faint
afterglow of electric current.
Lightning flashes that occur
inside dust clouds, such as those produced by volcanoes here on earth, are known
to produce mineral rich balls, so we know that such flashes draw matter together
into spheres [Physics: Z-Pinch]. And a lightning flash the size of a solar
system would similarly produce a large number of spherical balls from the dust
available in the area, all roasted on the surface while remaining relatively
cold on the inside.
According to this theory,
supernova flashes are not produced by the gravitational collapse of stars, as
postulated in standard theory. Supernovas are giant lightning flashes that
produce stars, and quite possibly all the planets and moons to go with them.
Matter at near absolute zero
temperatures is compacted into balls of various sizes, and the surface of these
balls are electrically roasted. The largest ones of these balls attract the
continued flow of the electricity that created them in the first place, and this
makes these balls glow and become stars, while the smaller ones are hooked up
electrically to the star or stars. The planets and moons are trapped
electrically, gravitationally, and in the general whirlpool of the current that
continues to flow.
This creation theory does in
other words not only explain the existence of water inside our planet, it
provides a reasonable alternative explanation for the orbits of planets and
moons as it postulates that there is a current flowing through our solar system,
powering our sun. Such a current would produce a whirlpool effect, with planets
close to our sun moving faster than planets farther away, precisely as observed.
Again, we come to the conclusion
that planetary and lunar orbits may be a good deal more complex than the
standard model suggests.
And this theory fits the
Afterglow and the Solar
Observations of stars that have
recently experienced a supernova event provide ample evidence for the electrical
creation theory. A faint hourglass shaped glow can be seen gradually fading away
in the years that follow a supernova flash. The star or stars formed are
invariably at the centre of the hourglass. The hourglass very much looks like a
current flowing in towards the centre, providing energy to make the stars glow.
And a curved current must necessarily be accompanied by a curved magnetic field,
which we know to have strong stabilizing effects on orbits [Primer Fields].
The glow will eventually fade
away completely, but that does not mean that the current disappears. It merely
goes from glow mode to dark mode as the whole system stabilizes. And we can,
based on this unorthodox theory, assume that our own solar system too is inside
an hourglass current with a correspondingly curved magnetic field. Furthermore,
we may assume that each planet is in itself under the influence of its own
whirlpool and curved magnetic field.
However, we do not have to make
up our minds here and now as to the exact nature of orbits. The electrical
creation theory is merely suggesting that things may be quite complex. The great
merit of the theory is not what it may or may not say about orbits, but its
ability to explain how our planet came to have a hard rocky surface
encapsulating a water and gas filled interior.
The electrical creation theory
gives support to the capacitor theory of gravity, and together they form a
complete explanation for all the observed facts. While the exact workings of
planetary orbits remain an unsolved problem, the overall story that can be told
is consistent with observations.
Our solar system was most
probably created in a supernova event some 4000 million years ago, and the
creation process itself took no more than a few days to complete. There was a
short circuit in the cosmic current flowing in our region of our galaxy, and
matter at near absolute zero temperatures were pulled violently into a sun in
the middle, several planets, and a large number of moons.
Every planet and every moon got
its crust thoroughly roasted. However, the heat was not strong enough to
penetrate very deep into these bodies, so all but the sun in the middle quickly
cooled down over the next few years.
But the glowing sun, powered by
the same electric current that created it in the first place, kept the planets
from cooling down completely. Over millions of years, every planet warmed to the
glow of the sun, both directly through radiation, and indirectly through
interactions of magnetic fields and auroras.
The internals of the various
planets went from ice to liquid and then on to gas. The larger planets, having
enormous reservoirs of gas and water trapped inside of them soon cracked and
became gas giants. Smaller planets like our own, with relatively much less gas
and water trapped in them did not crack for over a billion years.
Big Dragonflies, Low
Capacitance and Super-volcano
In our case, nothing much
happened for 3700 million years. Our planet was a pleasant green one. Gravity
was low because capacitance of our planet was low. And this allowed for giant
dragonflies to fly around.
However, solids were turning to
liquids inside our planet. Minerals drifted up while liquids and gas drifted
down, and in the process, capacitance improved. Gravity increased, even as our
planet remained the same size. However, nothing dramatic happened before the
first major venting of our planet occurred 251 million years ago.
The venting took the form of a
super-volcano [Geology: Siberian Traps] which spewed out highly poisonous gasses
over the next one million years. And by the time the venting finally stopped, 96
percent of all life on our planet had been wiped out.
The stage was set for a new
generation of giant animals to appear.
Dinosaurs started roaming the
earth. Gravity was stronger than what it was before the mass extinction, but not
much stronger. Gravity did not start growing significantly in strength before
180 million years ago when gas pressures inside our planet finally started the
Continents started drifting
apart. The rifts that formed were immediately filled with salt water released
from our planet's crust. These rifts became oceans.
The capacitance of our planet
improved and gravity became stronger. Some 66 million years ago, another mass
extinction event, quite possibly another super-volcano, wiped out the largest
dinosaurs. The surviving dinosaurs, all small, evolved and became the birds we
The extinction event was in no
way as dramatic as the first mass extinction 251 million years ago, but bad
enough to kill off a large portion of all species.
Then, quite soon, giant land
animals appeared again, almost as large as the dinosaurs. However, these
disappeared again as gravity continued to grow stronger.
As our planet continued to
expand, volcanoes became more numerous, and the super-volcano events of the
distant past became less severe as pressures were being vented in a more orderly
manner through smaller volcanoes rather than abruptly and violently through
The most recent super-volcano
event on our planet took place some 70 thousand years ago [Geology: Toba
Super-volcano]. It nearly wiped out our own species. However, as severe as it
was, it was practically nothing compared to eruptions that took place in a more
But the future may nevertheless
be a bleak one for us and all life on our planet. At some point, the venting may
become so overwhelming that our planet becomes uninhabitable. Earth may be set
on an irreversible course towards becoming a gas planet.
Venus, a planet very similar to
our own appears to be venting uncontrollably. It appears to be on its way to
become a gas planet, and our own planet may well follow where Venus is heading.
Mars on the other hand appears
to have just started its venting process. It may provide refuge for intelligent
life able to leave our planet as our atmosphere becomes thicker and hotter.
However, all of this is merely
anecdotal speculations. And there is definitely no reason to believe that
anything very dramatic will happen for a very long time yet, even if these
speculations should turn out to be true. This story is by no means conclusive.
Many other stories may fit the available evidence just as well.
Future Thinking, Future
This story serves solely as an
example, and I encourage everyone to look into the available evidence themselves
to come up with their own theories.
As more and more evidence is
gathered through continued observation of the universe, some theories will be
abandoned and others will come. This is how science should work. However, for
some reason, official science has become stuck in dogma. The standard models of
gravity, geology and creation are all in trouble, yet there is little serious
discussion about any replacements. Instead, strangely exotic mechanisms are
being invented to prop up the old models.
The current standard model of
gravity includes black holes, dark matter, dark energy, and an abundance of
super-dense matter, including at the centre of our own planet. None of this has
been observed directly, only inferred based on the assumption that the standard
models of gravity, geology and creation must be correct.
The standard models are ripe for
replacement. They no longer function as useful tools for our understanding of
the world around us. They are a hindrance for an honest investigation into how
the universe works. They are used to flatly deny evidence. They lead science
astray into the realm of mysticism where everything is inferred based on dogma
rather than deduced from observation.
Dogma is getting in the way of
honest thinking, and we need to get away from it so that we once again can think
freely about gravity, geology and creation. Everyone with a theory that fits the
available evidence should be given a fair hearing.
For further information on the
subjects covered in this essay, the following names, keywords and topics may be
[Astronomy: Supernova] Bright
flashes occurring regularly in galaxies.
[Astronomy: Variable Stars] FG
Sagittae, V 605 Aquilae, V 4334 Sagittarii and V 838 Monocerotis are examples of
stars that have changed significantly over the past decades.
[Dinosaur: Brontosaurus] Long
[Dragonfly: Epiaeschna Heros]
Typical example of a large present day dragonfly.
Caerulatus] Largest know present day dragonfly.
[Dragonfly: Meganeura] Largest
known prehistoric dragonfly.
[Geology: Gondwana] Present day
South America, Africa, India, Madagascar, South Pole and Australia.
[Geology: Laurasia] Present day
North America, Europe and Asia.
[Geology: Siberian Traps] The
first and the largest known super-volcano event.
[Geology: Toba Super-volcano]
Super-volcano event that took place 70000 years ago.
[Maths: Inverse Square Law]
Applicable both to gravity and charge.
[Maths: Newton's Shell Theorem]
A spherical collection of equally distributed monopoles will act as if they were
all located at the centre of the sphere.
[Physics: Birkeland Currents]
Concentric twisting currents of charged particles.
[Physics: Boyle's Law] Changes
in gas pressure are directly proportional to changes in density.
[Physics: Coulomb's Law] The
force between two charged particles are inversely proportional to the square of
the distance between them. Demonstrated in laboratory.
[Physics: Primer Fields] Curved
magnetic fields [Ref: David LaPoint].
[Physics: Electric Universe]
[Physics: EZ Water] A forth
state of water [Ref: Gerald Pollack].
[Physics: Kepler's Third Law]
Describes planetary orbits. Accurate to within 2%.
[Physics: Newton's Law of
Universal Gravity] The force between two masses are inversely proportional to
the distance between them. Inferred from observations.
[Physics: Spherical Capacitors]
Capacitance of a spherical capacitor is directly proportional to the product of
the inner and outer radius, divided by the thickness of the dielectric shell.
[Physics: Z-Pinch] A plasma
containment system that uses an electrical current in the plasma to generate
[Ref: David Esker] Shows in his
work that dinosaurs could not exist on our planet today.
[Ref: David LaPoint] Has done
research into curved magnetic fields.
[Ref: David Scott] Contributor
to the Electric Universe community.
[Ref: Fredrik Nygaard] Has
written several essays on gravity.
[Ref: Gerald Pollack] Professor
of Bioengineering at the University of Washington.
[Ref: Goran Mitic] Has his own
theory about gravity.
[Ref: James Maxlow] Has done
thorough research into the expanding earth model.
[Ref: Jan Lamprecht] Showed in
his work that seismic evidence points towards a hollow earth.
[Ref: Keith Hunter] Shows in his
work that there are relationships between the size of objects and their orbits.
[Ref: Neal Adams] Proponent of
the expanding earth model.
[Ref: Peter Woodhead] Proponent
of the hollow earth model.
[Ref: Stephen Hurrell] Shows in
his work that dinosaurs could not exist on our planet today.