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.

    • [deleted]

    • Post #191

    We now have a new hypothesis for the resolution of the question raised by Caudal: Are Venus and Earth in a long-distance relationship? as well as a mechanism for geomagnetic fields and pole shifts. The supermagnetism of the moon creation dm comet would be more than enough to churn the mantle with one side attracting and the other side repelling, having the long axis of the comet lying near the horizontal of the Earth's orbital plane.

      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

      • [deleted]

      • Post #193

      Here's my first sketch showing the moon creation dm comet inside the Earth which will both magnetise the adjacent solid iron core to create the Earth's magnetic field *and* churn the inner mantle to create the electric field.Attachment #1: Internal_Comet_Earth.jpg

      We now have a model for the millennial cycle which fits the shape of the curve in Rahmstorf's Timing Of Abrupt Climate Changes. With this new mental image of the moon creation dark matter comet, Figure 1 shows a perfect fit at D-O events 7,6 and 5 especially. As the moon's orbit moves towards the ecliptic, as seen from the northern hemisphere, it will experience a repulsive impulse from the dm comet. This will dramatically increase the tide raising forces on Earth, despite the moon moving further away in it's orbit. When the moon's orbit passes the repulsive zone it will momentarily experience normal gravitational attraction before passing through the attractive impulse phase below the Earth's equator. This will similarly dramatically increase tide raising forces, but at the same time bring the moon closer to the Earth, for a prolonged period of higher tides. This double peak can be seen before the spike of D-O 7,6 and 5. There's similarly a double peak on the slightly gentler cooling side of the warming events.

      The moon is currently moving away from the Earth, which fits with a northern hemisphere lunar orbit. The moon would have risen through the repulsive impulse phase and moved further way from the Earth. When it returns on it's cycle it will move further way still before reaching the attraction zone of the southern hemisphere.

      My apologies for not explaining this more clearly, but I wanted to get something done in writing straight away.Attachment #1: Millennial_Cycles.jpgAttachment #2: Lunar_Millennial_Cycle.jpg

      The 1,800-year oceanic tidal cycle: A possible cause of rapid climate change can now be seen to fit the 1,470 year cycle given above, if dark matter comet impulses are considered. Here's a quote from that paper:

      [*quote*]A cause for such greater regularity in tidal forcing might be resonances of other bodies of the solar system, especially the outer planets. We are struck by the close correspondence of the average period of the 180-year tidal cycle of 179.5 years (1/10 of that of the 1,800-year cycle) and the period of the sun's rotation about the center of mass of the solar system of 179.2 years, the latter a manifestation of planetary resonances (13).[*end quote*]

      This 360 year movement of the sun relative to the earth is another important change in the dark matter impulses of the buried moon creation comet. It's the source of the 'little ice age' imo and is probably the biggest influence on our human civilisation w.r.t dramatic climate change.

      Both these cycles need careful analysis and consideration with immediate effect.

        Not the sun's position in the 360 yr cycle but that of the planets, especially Jupiter. It links with the aforementioned ice age cycle as well as the so called split peak problem.

        14 days later

        I have a solution for the twice size spider monkey finds. The Lachamps geomagnetic excursion of 40kya was caused by a dark matter comet impact on the south coast of Australia, creating the Nullarbor plain. The energy of the dark matter impact was enough to disrupt the mantle flow and therefore the Earth's magnetic field. This collapse of the geomagnetic field, evidenced by a spike in beryllium-10 in ice core data, would have let cosmic radiation erode the ozone layer. This would then have led to Earth's surface being awash with intense solar radiation.

        The comet impact also had the energy to lift the entire lithosphere, creating a landbridge stretching from S.E. Asia, arcing across the Pacific and reaching Mexico. This allowed species to cross from one continent to another and would explain the 40,000 year old human footprints discovered by Professor Gonzalez.Attachment #1: Lachamps_DM_Comet_Impact_40kya.jpg

          • [deleted]

          • Post #199

          This new comet would have joined with the moon creation comet in a magnet-like fashion, creating an eventual increase in mantle convection. A stronger magnetic field than *before* the 40kya event. A high peak of solar radiation followed by a decline which stopped lower than before it started. This is the kick start of our civilisation and the peripheral megafauna left behind.

          • [deleted]

          • Post #200

          Here's some dialogue I'm currently having about the latest developments:

          This isn't an ordinary comet impact though! It's a Tunguska-like impact which leaves little or no crater. Imagine a high velocity rifle bullet travelling through a water melon without making it explode. That's the kind of thing that can happen with dark matter travelling through the crust. The magnetic field is effected, initially collapsing to let in cosmic radiation which eliminates the ozone layer. More sunshine means more grass and fruit. Later though the magnetic field returns even stronger than before, so the big guys are hardest hit and are stressed enough to go extinct or evolve a clever survival strategy. Some of the megafauna of Australia was wiped out in the initial phase, such as the hippo-sized Diprotodon, the largest marsupial of all time, which went extinct 40,000 years ago.