PDA

View Full Version : Moon, centrifugal force, less gravity & big Dinos


mikon2014
05-07-2010, 12:36 AM
A few curious articles:

Theory of the formation of the Moon:

"...In Chapter Four, we left the earth spinning so rapidly that the rocky continental lithosphere had formed a thick belt or ring around the equator of the solid core of the earth. As the earth spun faster and faster the net gravitational force along the equator, which is the downward non-spinning gravity force minus the upward centrifugal spinning force, soon approaches zero.

Then about 65 million years ago, a large portion of that thick belt of land around the equator had less than zero gravity. Then the only thing holding it to the earth was the mechanical adhesion of the thick fluid lava layer called the asthenosphere. Then it simply overcame that sticky adhesion, something like unzipping a huge strip of Velcro around the equator, and it floated off into space.

That three fourths of the thick rocky ring around the earth carried with it a large amount of the rapidly spinning earth's energy in the form of angular momentum. It spiraled outward and was so large that it formed into a sphere by its own gravity and became what is today called the moon.

Full article here:http://www.brojon.org/frontpage/WHAT_REALLY_KILLED_THE_DINOSAURS.html

Below is a link to speculation that Dinosaurs would be too big and heavy to exist under current gravity. Combine this with the article above and a picture emeges of when the Earth used to spin faster, the balance of gravity and centrifugal force at the equator was close to zero but changed when the Moon was formed, slowing the Earths spin, reducing centrifugal force at the equator and as a result the increase in gravity killed the dinosaurs!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/1989265/posts

Add to this spontaneous evolution due to temporary bombardment by radiation:

"Every 1 to 2 million years, the magnetic field of the earth reverses the north and south magnetic poles. The earth itself does not reverse - just the magnetic field. During the reversal process, the earth's magnetic field, which usually acts as a shield protecting lifeforms from intense solar X-rays, gamma rays, and deadly dangerous ionizing particle radiation, suddenly disappears. The deadly intense solar radiation is momentarily allowed to strike the surface of the earth.

Within hours, about 99 percent of all life on earth is instantly killed by the intense radiation. Those few 1 percent of survivors, hidden in caves, in holes in the earth, or under water are highly deformed, damaged and mutated by the intense radiation causing direct damage to the DNA molecules in their reproductive cells. But the radiation damage is not visible in those survivors, but it is clearly seen in their direct offspring.

Within months or a year, or less than one generation, the surviving mutants which may or may not still be viable, may be able to reproduce. This results in multitudes of numerous competing similar but highly modified mutant lifeforms. Then and only then, does Darwin's evolution process of "natural selection," enter the scene, to cull the less able or disabled mutant forms to be lost to history, while the strong survivors with many new adaptable traits become numerous new species. The new species were suddenly "created" by the intense radiation within one generation.

Example: About 1 million years ago, during the last magnetic field reversal, one species, Saber Tooth tigers, were extremely irradiated and in less than a year became, modern lions, tigers, pumas, ocelots, bobcats, pussycats and numerous other feline species. None of the new species was ever seen before the massive radiation event at the magnetic field reversal. Darwin's "evolution" didn't and couldn't do all of that within several years. But that is what the geologic record shows -- almost instantaneous "creation" of many new species by intense random radiation with no intermediate "missing link" forms, and all within one generation.

Since the time of the age of dinosaurs, which ended 65 million years ago, there have been about 15 to 20 magnetic field reversals. At each reversal, there is almost instantaneous creation of multitudes of new lifeforms, usually resulting in many forms coming from just one earlier life form. And usually the earlier life form disappears, since it is no longer competitive.

Another example: The early horse, eohippus, about the size of a dog, disappeared, but became donkeys, horses and several equine variants such as zebras which are almost related species. Notice, in this process there is no gradual evolution -- and thus no "missing links" between species.

Charles Darwin, when he invented his evolution theory, knew nothing about this, since "radiation" was not "discovered" until 50 years later by Madame Currie. And the effect of radiation on DNA was completely unknown, until DNA was "discovered" by Watson and Crick 100 years after Darwin. Thus Darwin, in the mid-19th century, had no clue as to what might be the actual cause to make one species change into another species. ...."

Full article on following link ( as earlier ) but right at bottom of page under 'Evolution'...

http://www.brojon.org/frontpage/WHAT_REALLY_KILLED_THE_DINOSAURS.html

Does this spontaneous evolution / mutation happen more frequently....?

Graham Hancock in his book "Supernatural" Pg 129 describes common images in cave art which he believes were inspired by altered states of consciousness:

"..the cultures that created the ancient cave and rock shelter art of Upper Paleolithic Europe and of S.Africa held certain rather complex, peculiar and seemingly inexplicable ideas, and expressed these in their paintings, engravings and sculptures:
People can be part animal, part human and can transform fully into animals.
Animals can transform into other animals or appear as hybrids of two or more species.
Distorted-looking animals and utterly unfamiliar monsters exist."

Jonathan Black in "The Secret History of the World" Pg 87:

"In the Secret History the evolution of the species was not the even progress that science supposes. There were twists and turns that have important implications for the way we understand our own physiology and mental make-up. There were dead ends, false starts and even deliberate attempts at sabotage.
According to the secret doctrine the animals we know today evolved into the forms we are familiar with today, influenced by the stars and planets... Centaurs, mermaids, sirens, fauns and satyrs were predecessors of anatomically modern humans, representing the impulse to create anatomically modern humans in various transitional stages."

Jonathan Black same again page 93 - 94:

"It is also as well to remind ourselves again that although we may view many of the great figures of myths, both gods and human, as having an anatomy like our own, this is only how they appear in the eye of imagination.
The world looked very different to the physical eyes that were evolving at this time. This was still the world recorded in the Metamorphoses of the initiate-poet Ovid, when the anatomical forms of humans and animals were not fixed as they are now, a world of giants ( less gravity? ed:M ), hybrids and monsters ( radiation? ed:M)"

Maybe the 'Truth Vibration" emanating from the centre of the of the galaxy is a natural process due to knock life into the next stage of evolution?
As speculated by Icke, David Wilcocks and many others......?

Highly speculative stuff......questions arise concerning Scientific estimates of the age of the moon compared to the 'spin emergence theory'....also no fossil record of fantastical creatures / mutations as such... although Black speculates that this was happening on a different level of reality..... perhaps time will tell..... let's continue to investigate, speculate and be 'in the world but not of it".....!!! Have fun!

www.myspace.com/sonicpresent

dontbeafraid
05-07-2010, 12:59 AM
If that spinning theory is correct, and the moon was formed from the earth 65million years ago, then there should also be dino fossils and shells and a whole bunch of other creations fossilized on the moon. Just to upset the moon landing believers...why did'nt the astronauts report dino fossils?

ultima1
05-07-2010, 01:08 AM
Just to upset the moon landing believers...why did'nt the astronauts report dino fossils?

Just to upset the hoaxers, why havn't you posted any real evidence that we did not land on the moon ???

All you do is repeat opinions and theories,, no facts and evidence.

moving finger
05-07-2010, 05:28 AM
If the gravitational pull of earth wasn't strong enough to keep the mass that formed the moon in place on earth, how was there enough to keep the moon in earth's orbit?

Darwin didn't formulate evolution, he formulated a mechanism by which evolution occurred.

Watson & Crick didn't discover DNA, they demonstrated its structure.

It is not biologically possible to mutate an entire species inside one year. Any radiation strong enough to do that would kill off everything.

The astronauts didn't find any dinosaur fossils on the moon because there aren't any. You can't invent a theory, then use it to prove another invented theory.

dontbeafraid
05-07-2010, 05:44 AM
Just to upset the hoaxers, why havn't you posted any real evidence that we did not land on the moon ???

All you do is repeat opinions and theories,, no facts and evidence.

Every single piece of so called evidence you have are nasa home movies, easily faked. And every piece of lunar soil can come from unmanned missions.

I don't want to turn this posters thread into a different topic, so lets not get into a long discussion about why you think a few movies made by nasa are real. I know you believe they went. My question is, what is your motive to prove to me they did? I actually could care less what they did or didnt do, I just look at the record of lying and deciet they have pulled on people, and my rule is, once a person lies to me, I dont believe any of their claims, its like that in a court of law as well. If you are caught lying, your testimony is useless. They should have thought about that before lying.
I will check the other moon thread for your answer. And please, relax, its just a forum. You are probably a nice guy and I dont have anything personal against anyone on the internet. :) And you should'nt either.

mikon2014
05-07-2010, 11:49 PM
'Moving Finger' and' Dontbeafraid' thank you for your interesting and thoughtful comments and observations:

Finger Q:"If the gravitational pull of earth wasn't strong enough to keep the mass that formed the moon in place on earth, how was there enough to keep the moon in earth's orbit?"

I think the author addresses this in the full article at:

http://www.brojon.org/frontpage/WHAT_REALLY_KILLED_THE_DINOSAURS.html

The Author writes: "If the earth spins at 24 hours per day, as it does today, then the force of gravity at the equator is about the same as the force of gravity at the north and south poles. If the earth spins faster, in about a 12 hour revolution day, then the force of gravity at the equator is around half of what it would be at the poles. And if the earth spins around in about 7 hours, then the force of gravity becomes rather close to zero at the equator, while the force at the poles remains the same. "
Also:
"A little further calculation can show that almost all of the moons in our solar system were ejected from their parent planet by this very same process. It is a natural part of the aging and evolution of planetary systems. As a rotating planet cools, it spins faster and faster, becoming oblate and unstable. It releases a moon from the oblate surface, just like Tara Lipinski ( an ice skater ) putting out her arms to slow down her spin, decreasing the planet's rotation rate and it becomes stable again. This may be repeated with the larger planets. After a long time, the larger planets continue to cool and shrink and release another moon. The larger the planet the more moons it produces to become stable."

Finger says: "Darwin didn't formulate evolution, he formulated a mechanism by which evolution occurred."

I presume you mean "natural selection" ? Please can you explain a bit more about the point you are making here.....?

Finger writes: "Watson & Crick didn't discover DNA, they demonstrated its structure."
Do you think that is why the author put "discover" in speech marks?

Finger writes: "It is not biologically possible to mutate an entire species inside one year. Any radiation strong enough to do that would kill off everything."

Well, the author does write: "Within hours, about 99 percent of all life on earth is instantly killed by the intense radiation. Those few 1 percent of survivors, hidden in caves, in holes in the earth, or under water are highly deformed, damaged and mutated by the intense radiation causing direct damage to the DNA molecules in their reproductive cells. But the radiation damage is not visible in those survivors, but it is clearly seen in their direct offspring."

Do you know of any studies on radiation and mutation?

It's interesting to note the following:

"
BERKELEY, CA – A detailed and extensive new analysis of the fossil records of marine animals over the past 542 million years has yielded a stunning surprise. Biodiversity appears to rise and fall in mysterious cycles of 62 million years for which science has no satisfactory explanation. The analysis, performed by researchers with the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) and the University of California at Berkeley, has withstood thorough testing so that confidence in the results is above 99-percent..
Physicists Richard Muller (left) and Robert Rohde analyzed the fossil records of marine animals over the past 542 million years and found that biodiversity appears to rise and fall in mysterious cycles of 62 million years."

http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/Phys-fossil-biodiversity.html

Also:

"Early in his career, Gould and Niles Eldredge developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium, in which evolutionary change occurs relatively rapidly, as compared to longer periods of relative evolutionary stability.[2] According to Gould, punctuated equilibrium revised a key pillar "in the central logic of Darwinian theory."[5] "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould#Evolutionary_developmental_biolo gy

There's some highly speculative and 'way out' ideas about evolution (amongst many other ideas) in David Wilcocks video:

2012 Event Horizon: (1) Prophecies and Science of a Golden Age, by David Wilcock - YouTube


Finger & Dontbeafraid "The astronauts didn't find any dinosaur fossils on the moon because there aren't any."

In the full article the author does write: "

"There are no black maria or seas of lava on the far side of the moon. The back side of the moon is appreciably higher and thicker and made of much lighter rocky continental material. It used to be the very thick belt of land around the oblate earth just before it separated. Are there dinosaur fossils on the far side of the moon? Nobody ever asked that question before, so I will let you answer.
It would seem that the backside of the moon would make an ideal space port. Working in one sixth gravity would make mining and manufacturing much easier. The abundance of metallic and ceramic materials in the soil along with vast resources of precious materials and fuel would mean making large spacecraft for long distance travel quite possible and much easier than on earth.

According to NASA, they plan to return to the moon by 2015 to begin a manned space program to other planets. According to the Chinese, they plan to arrive at the moon and stake claims to all the mineral rights just before 2015. Do the Chinese know something about the moon that NASA doesn't?

What we will find by looking again at the geologic record is the evidence showing exactly what really killed the dinosaurs. And why there is a white powdery layer surrounding earth called the K-T boundary which is rich in Indium."

Finger: "You can't invent a theory, then use it to prove another invented theory. "

I agree.... but aren't all theories to some extent invented and attempt to offer explanations for previously unexplained phenomena? Ideally a good theory would make predictions, one of this ( not necessarily good theory / hypothesis ) predictions is that there should be fossils on the far side of the moon and it attempts to explain the K-T boundary.

'Dontbeafraid' you mention that "If that spinning theory is correct...the moon was formed from the earth 65million years ago.."

It would appear that current established Scientific thinking puts the age of the moon at about 4 1/4 billion years

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_old_is_the_moon

So quite a gap! :eek: Maybe new research will adjust the age ?

However, it would be close to the information that "Biodiversity appears to rise and fall in mysterious cycles of 62 million years for which science has no satisfactory explanation."
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/Phys-fossil-biodiversity.html

Does anyone have any thoughts on the apparent impossibility of Dinosaurs in current Earth gravity? Their necks are just too long and would snap....amongst other things discussed in the following link:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/1989265/posts

Ultimately, this is highly speculative stuff but I thought there might be some like minded people out there willing to consider it and feedback....

After all, "A mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work if it's not open" Frank Zappa

Thank you again for taking the time to read through...

Regards, MIKON2014

www.myspace.com/sonicpresent

tabea_blumenschein
06-07-2010, 04:28 AM
'Moving Finger' and' Dontbeafraid' thank you for your interesting and thoughtful comments and observations:

Finger Q:"If the gravitational pull of earth wasn't strong enough to keep the mass that formed the moon in place on earth, how was there enough to keep the moon in earth's orbit?"

I think the author addresses this in the full article at: http://www.brojon.org/frontpage/WHAT...DINOSAURS.html

The Author writes: "If the earth spins at 24 hours per day, as it does today, then the force of gravity at the equator is about the same as the force of gravity at the north and south poles. If the earth spins faster, in about a 12 hour revolution day, then the force of gravity at the equator is around half of what it would be at the poles. And if the earth spins around in about 7 hours, then the force of gravity becomes rather close to zero at the equator, while the force at the poles remains the same. "

I'm sorry, but that's wrong.

For "centrifugal force" to balance gravity at the equator, the Earth would have to spin on its axis once every 84 minutes, not once every 7 hours. For the "centrifugal force" to be half the strength of gravity at the equator, the Earth has to spin on its axis once every 2 hours, not once every 12 hours.

You can check for yourself with this equation:

T = 2 * pi * sqrt(r / g)

Where pi is 3.1416, r is the radius of the Earth (6,370,000 meters) and g is the desired strength of the "centrifugal force". For the "centrifugal force" to equal gravitational field strength, then g = 9.8 meters per second squared. For the "centrifugal force" to equal 50% of gravitational field strength, g = 4.9 meters per second squared (9.8 * 0.5 = 4.9). The result, T, is the rotational period of the Earth in seconds. You can convert that to minutes by dividing by 60, or convert to hours by dividing by 3,600.



Ultimately, this is highly speculative stuff but I thought there might be some like minded people out there willing to consider it and feedback....

After all, "A mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work if it's not open" Frank Zappa

Thank you again for taking the time to read through...

Regards, MIKON2014

www.myspace.com/sonicpresent

Highly speculative stuff, indeed.

moving finger
06-07-2010, 05:27 AM
My point about Darwin & Watson & Crick was purely pedantic. It always annoys me when Darwin is claimed to have invented evolution - the theory was around for many years. What he did was synthesise existing theories and demonstrate from his studies that natural selection was the process by which evolution produced new adaptations to environmental circumstances, and ultimately new species.

Radiation can be a cause of mutations that may or may not be useful, but natural variation within species is a major factor: a few individuals carry an extreme variation of a feature that proves more useful in exploiting their environment, those individuals become more successful and pass on that feature to their offspring and so on and so on.

My apologies for missing the inverted commas around Watson & Crick's "discovery".

As for the moon theory, sorry - it doesn't make sense to me (I couldn't go to the original article either as the link didn't work). I agree with your point about how science develops using new theories that are initially based on speculation, but those speculationishave to be based on actual evidence, and each new theory has to be proved in order to advance to the next step.

tabea_blumenschein
06-07-2010, 05:32 AM
As for the moon theory, sorry - it doesn't make sense to me (I couldn't go to the original article either as the link didn't work).

If moving finger is referring to the brojon.org link, it didn't work for me, either.

mikon2014
06-07-2010, 09:11 AM
Ok, the link should work now:

http://www.brojon.org/frontpage/WHAT_REALLY_KILLED_THE_DINOSAURS.html

moving finger
06-07-2010, 02:01 PM
I tried to read it, I even tried to write down all the holes in the arguments, but I got fed up.

Not one reference, incorrect dates, flawed logic, incorrect attribution of theoretical development, massive assumptions that just aren't addressed, and a healthy dose of annoyance that the scientific community don't believe his theory.

I'm not surprised. Basically everyone is wrong except him, and he still doesn't adequately explain how earth can spin fast enough to cast off the moon completely, losing some of its gravitational pull in the process, and still retain the moon in earth orbit. To continue the skater analogy, surely if the skater had been holding a heavy weight & let go of it, the object released would disappear off into the distance. Maybe someone with a better understanding of celestial mechanics & basic physics can answer that one.

Where is his evidence that sabre tooth tigers mutated to form all other cats in 1 year? He doesn't give any. he just says it's so with no back up at all.

There are other theories that suggest earth & moon were separated equally violently, but much longer ago.

mikon2014
06-07-2010, 04:57 PM
'Moving Finger' Re: "I tried to read it, I even tried to write down all the holes in the arguments, but I got fed up."

Thank you for at least trying... very noble! :)

I would be interested in your thoughts on David Icke's ideas, is there a thread where I could get an overview of your approach ( I presume you have posted on here a lot ? )

Regards, MIKON2014

mikon2014
20-10-2012, 01:16 PM
BBC News 18 October 2012 :


"Scientists have put a new turn on the theory of how the Moon was created....


Matija Cuk, from the Seti Institute, and colleagues (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2012/10/16/science.1225542.abstract) ran new simulations in which the early Earth was rotating on its axis in just a few hours prior to the impact - compared to the present 24 hours.


In such a scenario, the team could get debris material thrown into a Moon-forming disc around the Earth that had the right chemical make-up. In other words, it was substantial Earth material from its mantle that was ejected in the collision.

After the impact, the gravitational interaction between the Sun and the Moon could then have slowed the fast rotation of the Earth to the speed we now experience. "


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19992233 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19992233)