## How Earth's Mass Changed

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

Lloyd
Posts: 4433
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

### How Earth's Mass Changed

Evidence of Low Gravity in the Past
Members of the EU team, esp. Ted Holden, consider that the large dinosaurs died out in part due to an increase in Earth's mass or in its force of gravity. If mass changes, then gravity should change too, since it depends largely on mass. Or does it? Mathis says the EM force depends on mass but the gravity force depends on volume. But the force of EM is already included in the gravity equation. So maybe a change in EM force would have a harmful effect on large fauna. Here's a quote from Mathis.
http://milesmathis.com/photon3.pdf
I was recently asked why light is going c, and now I believe I have a partial answer. The information is
mγ = 2rγ/c√c
c = 2rγ/√c)mγ
c^3 = 4rγ
2/mγ
2
c = 3√(4rγ
2/mγ
2)
That means that the velocity c is a function of the photon's mass and radius. In other words, its speed is determined by its size in the field, just as we would expect. In the macro-world, we would need one other variable to solve, that being the density of the charge field as a whole. I have recently found the mass equivalence of the charge field relative to the matter field (baryonic matter), that being 19 times. This is where we are getting the “dark matter” number of 95%. But that doesn't give us a universal charge density. In fact, according to my theory and equations, there should be no universal charge density. Charge [i.e. PHOTONS] should be denser in galaxies than out of them, and denser near stars, and so on. By this analysis, it seems that the velocity of the photon would change in different densities. Because this appears not to be so, I assume that the mass of the photon may change depending on the charge density around it. Remember that mass is a function of energy according to the old equation Eγ = mγc2, which means that the photon's mass is already a function of the charge density. As the charge density grows, so will m. So that variable m already includes the charge density, in a way. This feedback mechanism may be what keeps c constant.
Catastrophe: Change in Light = Change in Gravity?
Cardona, Talbott et al seem to agree that Earth was a satellite of Saturn till about 10,000 years ago, when the Saturn system entered the Solar system. So before that Earth was only getting light from Saturn when it was still a brown dwarf star. When Saturn reached the heliopause, it went nova and lost mass and became a gas giant. As Earth became a satellite of the Sun instead of Saturn, it entered an area of greater photon density near the Sun, and the photon density increase may have increased the mass of the Earth and its gravity or EM force enough to kill off large fauna. I'll see if I can get Mathis' view on that.

Lloyd
Posts: 4433
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

### Re: How Earth's Mass Changed

By the way, Mathis calculated that the mass of total photons in a volume of space, like the Solar system maybe, is about 19 times the mass of all of the matter there. So the pressure from photon traffic would be significant. Where the photon traffic is heaviest, matter tends to ionize, according to his model. That would be why the Sun's matter is ionized. A brown dwarf star would apparently have less ionized matter, if I'm understanding correctly. The solar wind is produced by the constant stream of photon traffic pushing the light electrons out of atoms and probably also forming electrons at the same time.

JeffreyW
Posts: 1925
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

### Re: How Earth's Mass Changed

Or the atmosphere was much thicker meaning it was more like a diffuse liquid, meaning the weight of dinosaurs would be reduced considerably because of buoyancy. As well the thicker atmosphere probably had higher concentrations of water vapor, and since water has a high specific heat capacity the heat coming off the dinosaurs was drawn away from them in large quantities, meaning they were probably warm blooded.

As well a thicker atmosphere would allow for flight in much heavier animals, thus meaning their bodies could be much larger as opposed to wing span area. This concerns abnormally large dragonflies and flying dinos.

I'm surprised this option is not considered, gas is a highly compressible fluid, the creatures closest to the surface were probably living in a dense fog of water vapor. The dense fog of water vapor would reduce their vision and make it unnecessary to have large brains (they couldn't see anything so there was very little to process).

I'm guessing their auditory senses were relied on the most because if the gas is compressed to high levels sound would travel much faster, thus meaning they probably communicated via sound much better than vision.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v4.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 4

Lloyd
Posts: 4433
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

### Re: How Earth's Mass Changed

Like the Gas Giants
Yes, JW, a thicker atmosphere in the past is likely too. A thread of mine was called "Earth was a moon of Saturn". In that thread I posted some of Fred Juenemann's theory that Earth used to be a planet like Uranus or Neptune, with a very thick atmosphere, which was mostly blown off when Saturn went nova upon entering the Solar system. Fred also theorized that Earth was oval-shaped before becoming spherical and the change in shape is what caused the supercontinent to break up.

Plastic Earth
It's already known that at 7 miles deep on the Kola peninsula of Siberia during the deep borehole project the rock was found to be somewhat plastic, which caused the borehole to close up at the bottom, making further drilling impossible. Charles has explained that ionization would explain the rock becoming plastic. He also explains that CFDLs, current-free double layers, probably at the Moho discontinuity, and compressive ionization explains the ionization and plasticity. Normal rock is brittle, not plastic. It's possible that the Earth was plastic enough a few thousand years ago to change shape easily under EM forces or something.

### Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests