Hi Wilhelmus

My personal t.o.e has the ability to make predictions though. I believe that tidal forcing of warm equatorial waters to the polar regions becomes reduced during an ice age, which the world is currently heading towards. This extra heat will bring a low level cloud belt to the equatorial regions whilst the polar regions will have extra clear sky sunshine, despite the colder average air temperatures. This is why megafauna was so abundant in northern latitudes during the ice age, they were able to graze on the swathes of fast growing grasses. The high altitudes of the equatorial uplands and altiplano would also bask above the low lying cloud belt and similarly enjoy extra clear sky sunshine as well as an increase in average air temperatures. This is the region of the megaflora which enabled the spider monkeys and others to achieve double 'normal' size, who's remains were found in the TOCA DA BOA VISTA, Bahia state, the longest known cave in the Southern Hemisphere. It all fits

This tidal model with supermagnetism can predict the weather imo. Where I live on the south west tip of the UK, we are receiving less rain annually. This fits with the tidal model. It doesn't fit with the IPCC global warming models though, as far as I'm aware.

Kind regards,

Alan

3 months later

  • [deleted]

  • Post #172

The latest and final piece of the jigsaw is dark matter comets imo. One must anticipate the fall of Einstein's relativity to appreciate this new angle of enquiry. These anisotropic super-material impacts are the reason for orbital resonance. It would also explain the magnetised lunar rocks and the extra acceleration experienced by the lunar lander which caused it to overshoot it's designated landing site.

I'm convinced that the moon will eventually start to move towards the Earth in it's orbit, which is the origin of the Pervasive Millennial-Scale Cycle in North Atlantic Holocene and Glacial Climates of 1,470 years. This tidal increase will dramatically affect the climate and push warmer equatorial waters towards the poles. This extra energy will have the effect of stirring up nutrients and bringing them to the surface, creating a global wildlife boom.

In conjunction with the ice age tidal increase of Jupiter, I even envisage the lunar tidal increase to divert the warm Pacific current further north so that it passes over the sill of the Bering Strait into the Arctic basin. This is the origin of the megafauna abundance in the high arctic imo. It underpins the timing of the Heinrich events, with the tidal surge and change of current flow undercutting the glaciers and the warmer precipitation leading to flow steams under the ice.

  • [deleted]

  • Post #173

Oops, I should have said "despite the ice age tidal loss of Jupiter..". This shows the huge effect of the millennial cycle and the power the moon has over the global tidal system.

Check out these photographs of the Moon's Craters. The dark comet tidal locking hypothesis would predict a greater number of craters on the side facing the Earth:

Wikipedia:[QUOTE]The two hemispheres have distinctly different appearances, with the near side covered in multiple, large maria (Latin for 'seas,' since the earliest astronomers incorrectly thought that these plains were seas of lunar water). The far side has a battered, densely cratered appearance with few maria. Only 1% of the surface of the far side is covered by maria, compared to 31.2% on the near side. One commonly accepted explanation for this difference is related to a higher concentration of heat-producing elements on the near-side hemisphere, as has been demonstrated by geochemical maps obtained from the Lunar Prospector gamma-ray spectrometer. While other factors such as surface elevation and crustal thickness could also affect where basalts erupt, these do not explain why the farside South Pole-Aitken basin (which contains the lowest elevations of the Moon and possesses a thin crust) was not as volcanically active as Oceanus Procellarum on the near side.

Another factor in the large difference between the two hemispheres is that the near side has been shielded from impacts by the Earth via the synchronous rotation that keeps the far side exposed to impactors coming from outer space.

It has also been proposed that the differences between the two hemispheres may have been caused by a collision with a smaller companion moon that also originated from the Theia collision. In this model the impact led to an accretionary pile rather than a crater, contributing a hemispheric layer of extent and thickness that may be consistent with the dimensions of the farside highlands.[End QUOTE]

This is in contradiction to the reality of more craters on the far side. This can be explained by the dark matter comets passing through the centre of the Moon and causing lava flows on the other side. These buried dark matter comets and their supermagnetic effects could be attributed to their entry crater to give an internal picture of their size, orientation and location as well as the structure and dynamics of the collision.

The photos show slightly more north pole dark matter collisions compared to south pole. This is presumably due to our more southerly position in the Milky Way's spiral arm, the dark matter comets being produced from solar metastable metallic hydrogen released during supernova events.

    • [deleted]

    • Post #176

    lol. The Earth has more landmasses in the northern hemisphere which fits with the dark matter comet origins of our continents and also suggests they were made at different times in the distant past. This has huge implications for the dating of rocks and fossils for example.

    • [deleted]

    • Post #177

    Edit - of course, more southerly impacts of dark matter comets created magma plumes on the northern hemisphere of the Earth, which created the majority of the landmasses! (Islands such as Hawaii would still have been created by smaller more northerly impact events)

    The Scientists figure out our place in the Milky Way but only in a two-dimensional fashion, see diagrams attached. The dark matter comet hypothesis predicts a more *northerly* position compared to the average in the adjacent spiral arms. This is assuming that dark matter comets are MSMH debris released during supernova events.Attachment #1: spiralarm.jpg

    The dark matter comet hypothesis also fits with the high distribution of small island groups in the southern hemisphere, caused by smaller dmc impact events. The formation of the UK is now open for debate, with the ancient rocks of the lizard peninsula in Cornwall sitting along side younger rocks. The gravity hill on the central Isle Of Man suggests a smaller northerly dmc impact event imo.

    The dark matter comet hypothesis also ties in with the work of Shaviv and his Ice Age Epochs and Milky Way Spiral Arm Passages, although I don't agree with all his ideas, the main diagram of ice age epochs with passage through the spiral arms is very enlightening.Attachment #1: ice_age_epochs_and_spiral_arms.jpg

    • [deleted]

    • Post #180

    Surely there is now no mystery. The continents were created by the dark matter comet impacts on the other side of the globe. Magma outflows over millennia would have created a series of domes of rock. Erosion from wind and water then sculps them into the jagged ridges we see today. Am I missing something obvious?? The mountain ranges are generally located at the centre of the landmass as expected, as in the case of Antarctica. The Himalayas would have been similarly created. Maybe the Indian plate pushes them up slightly, but that's it.

    These domes of magma outflows over millennia are similar to the Deccan Traps in India which were created 60 and 68 million years ago. The dinosaur extinction event by a dark matter comet can now be explained in full.

    [QUOTE]The bulk of the volcanic eruption occurred at the Western Ghats (near Mumbai) some 65 million years ago. This series of eruptions may have lasted less than 30,000 years in total..

    The release of volcanic gases, particularly sulfur dioxide, during the formation of the traps contributed to contemporary climate change. Data point to an average fall in temperature of 2 °C in this period.

    Due to the volcanic gases and subsequent temperature drop, the formation of the traps is seen as a major stressor on biodiversity at the time. This is confirmed by a mass extinction topping 17 families per million years (about 15 families per million years above the average). Sudden cooling due to sulfurous volcanic gases released by the formation of the traps and localised gas concentrations may have been enough to drive a less significant mass extinction, but the impact of the meteoroid that formed the Chicxulub Crater (which would have made a sunlight blocking dust cloud that killed much of the plants and reduced global temperature, called an impact winter) made this one of the most pronounced mass extinctions in the Phanerozoic.

    Because of its magnitude, scientists formerly speculated that the gases released during the formation of the Deccan Traps played a role in the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event, which included the extinction of the non-avian dinosaurs. The current consensus among the scientific community is that the extinction was triggered by the Chicxulub impact event in Central America.[END QUOTE]

    The dark matter comet hypothesis gives the Chicxulub impact event a new burst of high energy which would have caused the Deccan Traps and the release of deadly fumes which engulfed the entire Earth.

      The dark matter hypothesis has major implications for the creation of the moon as well. A dmc which passed through the Earth is now a possiblity, with the ejecta on the other side of the globe to the entry point creating the moon. Did the dark matter comet slow down and remain inside the Earth, or did it pass right through and continue on it's journey at a much slower pace, now captured by our sun? The moon's much lower calculated mean density compared to the Earth suggests that the dmc didn't slow enough to form the core of our satellite (if it went right through). Here's a quote from Wikipedia:

      [QUOTE]The earliest dated Solar System material was formed 4.5672 ± 0.0006 billion years ago, and by 4.54 billion years ago (within an uncertainty of 1%) the Earth and the other planets in the Solar System had formed out of the solar nebula--a disk-shaped mass of dust and gas left over from the formation of the Sun. This assembly of the Earth through accretion was thus largely completed within 10-20 million years. Initially molten, the outer layer of the planet Earth cooled to form a solid crust when water began accumulating in the atmosphere. The Moon formed shortly thereafter, 4.53 billion years ago.

      The current consensus model for the formation of the Moon is the giant impact hypothesis, in which the Moon was created when a Mars-sized object (sometimes called Theia) with about 10% of the Earth's mass impacted the Earth in a glancing blow. In this model, some of this object's mass would have merged with the Earth and a portion would have been ejected into space, but enough material would have been sent into orbit to coalesce into the Moon.

      Outgassing and volcanic activity produced the primordial atmosphere of the Earth. Condensing water vapor, augmented by ice and liquid water delivered by asteroids and the larger proto-planets, comets, and trans-Neptunian objects produced the oceans. The newly formed Sun was only 70% of its present luminosity, yet evidence shows that the early oceans remained liquid--a contradiction dubbed the faint young Sun paradox. A combination of greenhouse gases and higher levels of solar activity served to raise the Earth's surface temperature, preventing the oceans from freezing over. By 3.5 billion years ago, the Earth's magnetic field was established, which helped prevent the atmosphere from being stripped away by the solar wind.

      Two major models have been proposed for the rate of continental growth:[37] steady growth to the present-day and rapid growth early in Earth history. Current research shows that the second option is most likely, with rapid initial growth of continental crust followed by a long-term steady continental area. On time scales lasting hundreds of millions of years, the surface continually reshaped as continents formed and broke up. The continents migrated across the surface, occasionally combining to form a supercontinent. Roughly 750 million years ago (Ma), one of the earliest known supercontinents, Rodinia, began to break apart. The continents later recombined to form Pannotia, 600-540 Ma, then finally Pangaea, which broke apart 180 Ma.[END QUOTE]

      The dark comet core could have passed through the Earth, but it's outer shell of baryonic ice would have been stopped by the crust in the first instance, creating the Earth's first oceans.

      Are the Himalayas the 'smoking gun' of this moon forming mega-event?

      • [deleted]

      • Post #183

      Wikipedia states: "Earth (or the Earth) is the third planet from the Sun, and the densest and fifth-largest of the eight planets in the Solar System." and "Earth's biosphere has significantly altered the atmosphere and other abiotic conditions on the planet, enabling the proliferation of aerobic organisms as well as the formation of the ozone layer which, together with Earth's magnetic field, blocks harmful solar radiation, permitting life on land."

      This suggests to me that the moon forming dmc core stayed within the Earth's interior and was responsible for the early creation of a strong magnetic field. This is the reason the ice/water deposited was able to remain in a liquid state and resolves the 'faint sun paradox'.

      • [deleted]

      • Post #184

      And/or greenhouse gases deposited with the water ice.

      My latest thoughts:

      The faint young sun paradox can simply be explained by incorrect dating for the age of the Earth. If the age of the Earth is much younger than thought, then the sun would indeed be strong enough to allow liquid water to flow on the surface. This dating problem would also resolve the strange suggestion of a supercontinent breaking apart to reform again, only to break apart and reform once more.Attachment #1: Solar_Life_Cycle.png

      Sorry, what is the connection between gravity and isotope decay?

      [/quote]That might be the wrong way of looking at things. The effect from the impact of a dark matter comet with so much kinetic energy and even when embedded in the mantle still having the ability to churn it into plumes with supermagnetism, are so mindboggling that just a change in the isotope experiment results of humans in the 21st Centuary seems quite minimal.

      ......

      The diagram showing the fossil connection of the southern continents shouldn't be taken as a literal representation imo. Imagine it with landmass in between. I think the dark matter comet struck the Earth coming fom behind the sun in a near miss. This not only pushed up the mantle to create the explosive magma dome and orbital ejecta but also tilted the Earth and would have changed it's orbit, also giving it it's wobble. These values would have been much larger than today presumably. It's this tilt of the northern landmass *away* from the Sun that meant the water froze and so the mountains did not erode as quickly if permantly kept in the deep freeze as well as preventing life from getting a toehold.

      The southern landmass had the warmer climate and liquid water flowed. The giant rivers eventually formed the Pacific and Southern Oceans and left the dry land of Antartica, Australia and the rest of the continents. Eventually the tilt receded enough to allow *liquid* water in the northern landmass. Over time these mighty rivers created the Arctic basin and the Atlantic ocean which also enabled warmer water to reach the high latitudes which might have triggered the first ice age epoch.

        It also explains why Antartica has "young looking mountains" and that evolution was slowed on this isolated landmass compared to the dinosaur finds of the others. The mainstream view has been in the news recently btw which is quite mystifying in stating that Antactica's mountains eroded away and reappeared "pheonix like"..Attachment #1: 580pxSniderPellegrini_Wegener_fossil_map_svg.png

        • [deleted]

        • Post #188

        Here's more complimentary evidence which fits this new picture Magnetic poles may once have been at equator (Apr 2010)

        [quote]DID the Earth's magnetic poles once lie near the equator? That could explain puzzling changes in the magnetism of rocks millions of years ago.

        The Earth's magnetic poles are aligned along roughly the same axis as its rotational poles. Geologists have assumed this was also true in the past, so they use volcanic rocks, which when they formed took on an imprint of the direction and strength of the Earth's magnetic field, to infer the rocks' original latitude and to trace continental motions over the past billion years.

        But doing this for rocks in North America and eastern Europe is turning up a conundrum. In both regions, there appear to be rocks that were at the equator at some points between 550 and 600 million years ago and near the poles for other parts of this time period.

        There appear to be rocks that moved from the poles to the equator several times in 50 million years

        That would imply that the ancient continents sped across the surface at more than 45 centimetres a year - twice as fast as the top speed of plate tectonics - then returned at a similarly impossible clip. That speed is also too fast to be explained by a phenomenon called true polar wander, in which the Earth's entire crust and mantle reorient, moving a different geographic region to the north pole.

        Instead, Alexandra Abrajevitch at Kochi University in Japan and Rob Van der Voo of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor suggest the magnetic pole itself shifted by 90 degrees, so that it lined up along the equator (Earth & Planetary Science Letters, DOI: 10.1016/j.epsl.2010.02.038).

        The planet's magnetic field is generated by the motion of molten iron flowing around a superhot, solid iron core. Changes in the thickness, viscosity and conductivity of the outer core in the past could have led to convection patterns that caused the magnetic pole to tilt.

        David Stevenson of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena says an equatorial pole is possible but says it is not clear what would cause the field to point at a single longitude long enough to leave a magnetic signature in the rocks. [end quote]

        This is most important part imo:

        [quote] There appear to be rocks that moved from the poles to the equator several times in 50 million years

        That would imply that the ancient continents sped across the surface at more than 45 centimetres a year - twice as fast as the top speed of plate tectonics - then returned at a similarly impossible clip. That speed is also too fast to be explained by a phenomenon called true polar wander, in which the Earth's entire crust and mantle reorient, moving a different geographic region to the north pole.[end quote]

        No-one interested in a common sense idea which fits like a glove? Birth of the moon ejecta from the formation of the Himalayas? Continental drift a fallacy that has persisted to this day? Explanation for Antarctica's young mountains? Earth not 4.5 billion years old but more like 300 million plus? Oh dear, what a miss.

        If you look at a map of the Earth, or better still a globe, you can use your imagination to picture the Pacific Ocean as the impact site. The dark matter comet would have approached from close under the sun and slammed up and to the right, creating the orogeny of rocks along the west coast of the Americas and Bering Stait as well as the Himalayas themselves.

        Plate tectonics and continental drift doesn't exist!Attachment #1: World_geologic_provinces.jpg

        The Millennial Cycle is due to the Moon and it's embedded dm comets reacting with the creation dm comet buried near the Earth's core. When it passes exactly over the supermagnetic attraction zone, located as near the centre of the island groups east of Australia, then it gets an impulse which changes it's orbit and distance. It moves further away when the orbit favours a path over the repulsive side, estimated to be just west of Africa.

        A sudden change in the Moon's orbit is therefore predicted. It should be possible with sophisticated analysis to estimate when this will occur imo.