Reality Was Born Analog But Will Digital Die? by Alan Lowey

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.

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

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?

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

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.

The receding of the moon indicates a loss of tidal warm waters into the higher latitudes. This has implications for the global warming debate and the reduction in natural CO2 release from the ocean bottoms. Here's a quote from the Introduction to Physical Oceanography: Chapter 13 - Deep Circulation in the Ocean

[quote]*The Oceans as a Reservoir of Carbon Dioxide*

The oceans are the primary reservoir of readily available CO2, an important greenhouse gas. The oceans contain 40,000 GtC of dissolved, particulate, and living forms of carbon. The land contains 2,200 GtC, and the atmosphere contains only 750 GtC. Thus the oceans hold 50 times more carbon than the air. Furthermore, the amount of new carbon put into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution, 150 GtC, is less than the amount of carbon cycled through the marine ecosystem in five years. (1 GtC = 1 gigaton of carbon = 1012 kilograms of carbon.) Carbonate rocks such as limestone, the shells of marine animals, and coral are other, much larger, reservoirs. But this carbon is locked up. It cannot be easily exchanged with carbon in other reservoirs.

More CO2 dissolves in cold water than in warm water. Just imagine shaking and opening a hot can of CokeTM. The CO2 from a hot can will spew out far faster than from a cold can. Thus the cold deep water in the ocean is the major reservoir of dissolved CO2 in the ocean.

New CO2 is released into the atmosphere when fossil fuels and trees are burned. Very quickly, 48% of the CO2 released into the atmosphere dissolves in the cold waters of the ocean, much of which ends up deep in the ocean.

Forecasts of future climate change depend strongly on how much CO2 is stored in the ocean and for how long. If little is stored, or if it is stored and later released into the atmosphere, the concentration in the atmosphere will change, modulating Earth's long-wave radiation balance. How much and how long CO2 is stored in the ocean depends on the deep circulation and the net flux of carbon deposited on the seafloor. The amount that dissolves depends on the temperature of the deep water, the storage time in the deep ocean depends on the rate at which deep water is replenished, and the deposition depends on whether the dead plants and animals that drop to the sea floor are oxidized. Increased ventilation of deep layers, and warming of the deep layers could release large quantities of the gas to the atmosphere.

The storage of carbon in the ocean also depends on the dynamics of marine ecosystems, upwelling, and the amount of dead plants and animals stored in sediments. But we won't consider these processes." [end quote]

This means that anthropogenic CO2 contributions might be being masked by the loss from tidal effects for example.Attachment #1: CO2_pump.png