History of the Earth

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Earth's elliptical orbit

Unread postby moses » Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:09 am

The distance difference now in the Earth's orbit is 147,000,000 km compared with 152,000,000 km, which by my calculations produces a 6% difference in radiation. In the past this could easily have been 50,000,000 and say 500,000,000 and thus a about a hundred times difference in radiation. Thus tremendous heat to evaporate ocean water and longish periods of cold.

However this does not take into account the effects of the tilt of the Earth. If we assume that the tilt then was about the same as it is now, then if the North pole was pointing towards the Sun when the Earth got close to the Sun then there would have been tremendous melting at the North Pole and the Northern Hemisphere, whereas the Antarctic would have had much less radiation and so much less melting. Also the evaporation of ocean water around the equator and in the Northern Hemisphere would have produced an immense amount of precipitation in the Antarctic. And so this process would explain the huge amount of ice there is in the Antarctic, without the need of water or ice coming from space, provided there was sufficient water on Earth. The building up of so much ice in the Antarctic would have dropped sea levels by tens of metres as well as upsetting the isostacy.

Thus following the logic leads to some pretty enlightening ideas.
Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1026
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Earth's ancient elliptical orbit

Unread postby moses » Tue Jul 17, 2012 6:30 pm

Ok, as Earth leaves the Sun in it's past very elliptical orbit, the North pole is beginning to point away from the Sun, the oceans have been warmed, and there is therefore still considerable evaporation and so a very cloudy atmosphere. But the continuous rain of the past 40 days (maybe) is beginning to ease. And so too, the enormous amount of snow fall in the Antarctic is beginning to lessen. But the Arctic is getting colder so instead of rain in the far northern areas there is much more snow. Perhaps very far north it had been snowing whilst less further south it had been raining whilst the Earth was near the Sun.

As the Earth moves further from the Sun the oceans are still warm, but cooling, so there is still much evaporation and so still lots of clouds, which not only produces rain but slows down the cooling of the land of the Earth. But far from the Sun the oceans have cooled considerably and now conditions on the land have become extremely cold and survival of the big creatures would be very difficult. The underground creatures could survive, but grass would have struggled, especially in the northern hemisphere. Perhaps around the equator and in the southern hemisphere conditions might have been better, however perhaps the big creatures died out in Australia due to these harsh conditions.

When Earth approached the Sun there would have been few clouds and so the radiation would have warmed the oceans but the nights would have been very cold on the land especially in the northern hemisphere. The Antarctic would have had little melting though.

So again when the Earth is near the Sun the oceans warm relatively quickly and the evaporation increases so it rains continuously, and snows greatly in Antarctica and probably snows somewhat in the Arctic too. Conditions in Australia are wet and maybe coolish but reasonable, and in Europe it is extremely wet and hot.

This cycle continues until the Earth interacts with, probably, Mars, and the orbit is changed. Maybe much warming occurs in this interaction and much of the Antarctic ice breaks away or melts, along with the mountain building and general movement up and down of the surface of the Earth, so that sea levels rise considerably. Of course there is much more to consider.
Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1026
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: Earth's ancient elliptical orbit

Unread postby CTJG 1986 » Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:19 pm

moses wrote:But the continuous rain of the past 40 days (maybe) is beginning to ease.


I don't personally believe the 40 days and 40 nights reference actually refers to any events lasting for 40 days and 40 nights, as the number 40 turns up in a lot of occult and Kaballistic literature and is purely symbolic.

Well it may not be purely symbolic as it may have an actual non-symbolic reference somewhere that I haven't considered yet but in general the number 40 is symbolically representative of Venus, Mars and Saturn aligned as One.

The Holy Trinity, Holy/Divine Triad, Eye of Providence, etc. are made up of the 3 planets Mars, Venus and Saturn aligned together, but altogether they form a 4th entity as the 'Holy Trinity/Triad'. 3 parts plus the sum of the whole.

So the 3 as One is actually 4, and the 4 altogether are 0 - the 'black-hole sun', Eye of Providence, etc.

As everyone on this forum should be aware when you divide by 0 you get an infinity of black-holes... ;)

When the 3 were 4 as 1 and 0 the 'rain'/plasma/oil/ etc. would have come down like a Son of a Gun for sure.

Note that the entire flood myth may not have actually referred to events occurring on this planet at that time as 'Noah' of the myth is representative of Saturn from what I've researched, though my level of certainty is low as it could be Mars rather but generally Mars is the 'mountain' and as such would be what the Ark(Venus?) came to rest on, leaving Saturn to be Noah by my reasoning.

The trouble is the minds of ancient man were quite crude and unsophisticated so what is 'reasonable' to me doesn't mean anything to their mythologies, haha. It really makes it difficult to unscramble some of the stuff, but it makes it more fun for me too.

But I am 100% certain that Noah and the Ark and the flood myth initially was entirely based on the planetary interactions and not necessarily an actual event occurring on this planet.

However quite obviously there were events on this planet that accompanied these celestial events no doubt but relying on the myths themselves to tell the tale of this planets specific history is not a wise idea in my view.

For example all the material I've gone through makes it quite clear the 'Eye-Land' Mountaintop(Mars) City of Atlantis is entirely based on the Venus-Mars-Saturn interactions and has nothing to do with an actual city or race that lived on this planet at any time.

Certainly there would be correlations with ancient cities that suffered similar fates at various times in history on this planet but to mistake cause and correlation is scientifically dangerous, and many on this forum have ranted about it before if I recall as the 'establishment' falls victim to such errors quite frequently.

Human history may be far more colorful than even the existing alternative theories can truly comprehend.

Cheers,
Jonny
The difference between a Creationist and a believer in the Big Bang is that the Creationists admit they are operating on blind faith... Big Bang believers call their blind faith "theoretical mathematical variables" and claim to be scientists rather than the theologists they really are.
CTJG 1986
 
Posts: 258
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 1:46 pm
Location: Southwestern Ontario, Canada

Re: History of the Earth

Unread postby moses » Tue Jul 17, 2012 8:16 pm

The trouble is the minds of ancient man were quite crude and unsophisticated so what is 'reasonable' to me doesn't mean anything to their mythologies, haha. It really makes it difficult to unscramble some of the stuff, but it makes it more fun for me too.
Jonny

Well the minds of the survivors of whatever happened were likely to be very stressed so not likely very reliable.

However quite obviously there were events on this planet that accompanied these celestial events no doubt but relying on the myths themselves to tell the tale of this planets specific history is not a wise idea in my view.
Jonny

Because of the state of mind of the survivors I agree. However there might still be messages from before the catastrophes.
Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1026
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: History of the Earth

Unread postby nick c » Tue Jul 17, 2012 9:14 pm

I don't personally believe the 40 days and 40 nights reference actually refers to any events lasting for 40 days and 40 nights, as the number 40 turns up in a lot of occult and Kaballistic literature and is purely symbolic.
Yes, agreed. I would not put any stock in numerical quantities or measurements that appear in myth. The only exception being if the same number keeps appearing in a similar context in a variety of myths from differing locations.
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2243
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: History of the Earth

Unread postby moses » Wed Jul 18, 2012 1:00 am

Pleistocene holds the advances and retreats, interglacials, etc.
Sea level fell 140 meters.

http://www.epa.gov/gmpo/edresources/pleistocene.html
"Animals moved north and south with the vegetation zones. There are a number of animals that existed during the Pleistocene epoch that are now extinct, such as: mammoths, mastodons, camels, horses, ground sloths, giant bears and wolves, lions, and saber-toothed cats. Several theories have been proposed to explain why these animals became extinct."

So how does an ancient elliptical orbit fit in with the standard ideas. The start of the ice age was 1.6 million years ago (standard), which would correspond with the break-up of the previous stable planetary configuration, some thousands of years ago (my time). The interglacials would each represent an Earth year in it's elliptical orbit.

The moraines were formed much quicker, and the glaciers advanced as per the standard model, but obviously much faster. Similarly the melting was extremely rapid and the flood plains as described. The large animals became extinct in North America and Australia.

Sea levels may have fallen by 140 meters and then gone up after the planetary interaction with Mars, presumably. Neanderthals initially survived, but the planetary interaction may have wiped them out. Other humans survived in caves. Australian natives survived the whole ice age rather than migrating during the ice age from outside Australia. Although migration to find better survival conditions would have generally been very likely.

The planetary interaction ended the ice age mainly by changing the orbit of Earth producing a much more round orbit close enough to the Sun to produce a warming. Thus the Younger Dryas is the time of the first major planetary interaction which produced mountains and the cool period which passed in to the just mentioned warming.

Then came the interactions with Venus and Mars that settled all the orbits into their present stable configuration. Thus we have the basic outline.
Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1026
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: History of the Earth

Unread postby katesisco » Sat Jul 28, 2012 6:43 pm

Actually science is now determined that the Moon is parented only by Earth. So that eliminates another body and leaves:
1) the Moon is birthed from the Earth, preferably the Pacific basin.
2) the Earth and the Moon arrived as one or at least together.
katesisco
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2008 9:36 am

Re: History of the Earth

Unread postby moses » Thu Aug 02, 2012 6:49 am

Tropical vegetation near Antarctica before the last ice age supposedly 52 million years ago, is strong evidence for my very elliptical orbit theory :

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 132339.htm
Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1026
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: History of the Earth

Unread postby moses » Tue Dec 18, 2012 7:11 pm

My view of the past has changed somewhat so I am doing this update. I still think that the Earth was in between two planets at some stage and there was a Birkeland Current that flowed between these planets and this produced the oceans and the sediment of the geological column. I now doubt that anything is known about which planets they were, although I still feel that the large dinosaurs came from one of these planets.

As before I do not think that Mars ( or Venus or Mercury ) was involved in this linear planetary arrangement.The Birkeland Current produced a remanent magnetic field in the Earth which is now slowly getting weaker, a major concern to us all.

The ideas of Dave T and Dwardu C are mistakes in that the depiction of a linear alignment of planets is in fact the conjunction of the Earth and Mars and probably the Moon and the edge of the magnetosphere of Jupiter or Saturn. Thus there was no Saturn System in the time period allocated by these authors. If there was a Saturn System then it was thousands of years before this. And very little survived the break-up of the old system whatever it was, and this was the time of the Neanderthal artifacts and the petroglyphs - just after the break-up.
Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1026
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: History of the Earth

Unread postby moses » Mon Feb 11, 2013 4:51 am

Studying Ice Cores from West Antarctica for Clues as to Why the Earth Began to Emerge from the Ice Age :

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 182659.htm

"Researchers found fluoride, which is commonly associated with a volcanic eruption, in a previous ice core, explained Peterson. However, the levels were higher than those expected from an eruption."

This tells me that the ice was not laid down in one big event. So that I am still running with the Earth being in an elliptical orbit which produced the heating and cooling required to produce all that ice.
Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1026
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: History of the Earth

Unread postby starbiter » Mon Feb 11, 2013 9:28 am

moses wrote:Studying Ice Cores from West Antarctica for Clues as to Why the Earth Began to Emerge from the Ice Age :

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 182659.htm

"Researchers found fluoride, which is commonly associated with a volcanic eruption, in a previous ice core, explained Peterson. However, the levels were higher than those expected from an eruption."

This tells me that the ice was not laid down in one big event. So that I am still running with the Earth being in an elliptical orbit which produced the heating and cooling required to produce all that ice.
Mo




Hi Mo,

It was Dr Velikovsky's position that the colder the Earth becomes, the less evaporation from the oceans. So the colder the oceans, the less precipitation. Cold water produces a cold desert like condition, similar to the N Pole, not glaciation.

The conditions described during the world wide events associated with Exodus would be more likely to cause glaciation. Warm oceans, which were reported to boil in places, and dusty air causing lower air temps.

michael
I Ching #49 The Image
Fire in the lake: the image of REVOLUTION
Thus the superior man
Sets the calender in order
And makes the seasons clear

www.EU-geology.com

http://www.michaelsteinbacher.com
User avatar
starbiter
 
Posts: 1445
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 9:11 am
Location: Antelope CA

Re: History of the Earth

Unread postby moses » Mon Feb 11, 2013 5:57 pm

Come on michael, an elliptical orbit implies a very elliptical orbit in this case, and so the Earth would get a lot lot closer to the Sun than it gets now. Anyway, this is all described by me ten, or so, postings above. I think that the argument there is compelling.

Anyway, this would have been in the early days of the Velikovsky interactions, well before the presumed Exodus.
Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1026
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: History of the Earth

Unread postby moses » Wed Feb 20, 2013 6:29 pm

Jurassic Records Warn of Risk to Marine Life from Global Warming :
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 140508.htm
"The team found a 'dead zone' recorded in the rock, which showed virtually no signs of life and contained no fossils. This was followed by evidence of a return to life, but with new species recorded."

I think that this clearly shows that there was not just one episode of laminated deposition, which would have formed the entire geological column in one go. So there was at least two episodes of such laminated deposition and by logic from the other geological boundaries, at least a few more.

So we need to find a planetary configuration that is consistent with this. I have maintained in the past that the events of sedimentation were caused by the near approach of another planet. And I even thought that some sediment may have originated on the other planet. Now I still see this as a possibility, but must consider that the strong electric currents that caused these sedimentation events could have originated without the near approach of another planet. For instance, perhaps the alignment of three big planets produced very large currents to travel over big distances and the Earth just got zapped inbetween these big planets.

Some evidence comes from the time taken for new species to flourish after a depostional event. Perhaps a few hundred years between depositions would be reasonable. This would put constaints on the orbits of the planets involved. If there was thousands of years between events then we are considering a rather different configuration. One day we will figure this all out.
Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1026
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Mars, Earth pole shifts

Unread postby moses » Mon Apr 29, 2013 8:54 pm

From considering that the Earth's pole was situated where the magnetic pole is now, this explained the high amount of ice in North America and the lesser amount in Siberia. So I suggested that Earth's pole shifted position during the time that Earth was in a very elliptical orbit.

But Mars shows evidence of having another position for it's pole too. From: http://www.soularsystem.net/astrology/a ... /mars.html
"The surface of Mars is divided into two main hemispheric regions that lie about 35º offset from the equator. "

Now if one considers that these regions were formed by either an Io type etching of the surface which always pointed at another planet, or else a Dave T type polar arrangement, then the pole would be on the edge of the regions or at the middle of the regions. If you can't work this out I will go into it further. The point is that the pole has shifted from it's position in the previous planetary configuration.

So it is simple to propose that both the Earth and Mars pole shifts occurred in the one Earth-Mars interaction. Which suggests that the break-up of the old system was not that dramatic, but the big planetary dramas came when Mars nearly collided with Earth later on. A lot of corollaries arise from this which I might write about later.
Cheers,
Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1026
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: History of the Earth

Unread postby moses » Sat May 04, 2013 8:05 pm

If, indeed, the Earth's North Pole was about where the magnetic pole is now only some thousands of years ago, then this might give a clue as to why the magnetic pole moves now. If the Earth basically has two solid parts, the crust and a solid metal core, then in the previous configuration the crust would have rotated with the same axis and angular speed as the core.

Then, after the Mars-Earth interaction, the core was not altered in it's axis or speed, whereas the crust changed axis position, and probably changed angular speed as well. Now the crust would have retained a remanent magnetic field which would presumably help keep the core's axis lined up with this remanent field. However the core will experience a force tending to align the axis with the crust axis and get the same speed of rotation.

So the core changes it's rotation, thus it only remains for the core to generate a portion of the Earth's magnetic field for this change in rotation to produce the measured change in the Earth's magnetic field.

Now, very significantly, there is no magnetic reversal, so the remanent magnetic field will weaken and so will the Earth's magnetic field unless, somehow, there is generation of a magnetic field in the core. If the core is just a remanent magnetic field then the Earth inhabitants will be in big trouble in a few thousand years.

Another issue is the lack of a significant magnetic field on Mars. If Mars was in a similar configuration as the Earth then one would expect a big remanent magnetic field. And the large amount of material lost in one hemisphere only of Mars, indicates that Mars was in an Io-like orbit around a very electrically active big planet, or experienced etching for a very long time. Either way, an atmosphere or ocean on Mars would have been very unlikely. Only if this etching occurred during the Mars-Earth interaction could Mars have had atmosphere and ocean.

But either way considerable material would have been tranferred from Mars to Earth, so soil and rock samples from Mars should match such material on Earth. This would supply the truth of all this.
Cheers,
Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1026
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests