By Fredrik Nygaard
Interview with Fredrik (09 Oct 2016)
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 before us.
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 presumption based?
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 be sustained.
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 times bigger.
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 Fossil
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 mystery.
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 hips.
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 times stronger.
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 next question.
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 this buoyancy.
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 correct.
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 Africa.
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 Indian Ocean.
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 landmass.
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 up.
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 it expands.
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 gravitational pull.
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 pressure.
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 the expansion?
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 expect.
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 of time.
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 expanding.
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 different.
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 Capacitance
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 gravity anomalies.
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 lightning.
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 lunar orbits?
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 necessarily repulsion.
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 Nygaard].
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 gravity.
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 and moons.
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 earth.
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 space.
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 side.
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 mystery.
Variable Stars, Planets and Orbits
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 explanation.
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 Scott].
Supernovae, Short Circuits and Planets
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 and moons.
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 great network.
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 observed facts.
Afterglow and the Solar System
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 expansion process.
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 know today.
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 enormous eruptions.
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 distant past.
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 Science
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 of help:
[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 necked dinosaur.
[Dinosaur: Quetzalcoatlus] Flying dinosaur.
[Dragonfly: Epiaeschna Heros] Typical example of a large present day dragonfly.
[Dragonfly: Megaloprepus 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] Science community.
[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 compression.
[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.
Beyond Water — What Makes the World Go Round?