David Calder Hardy's Cosmology
Oh Boy, what is Believable?
I have just seen the Discovery Channel documentary on the planet 'Orpheus' and its supposed physical impact with earth. The suggestion is made that it collided with earth and spun off and into orbit somewhat closer to the earth than the moon now. Not only that, the documentary goes further and says that it formed two moons that later collided with each other and became the moon we see now. I think that there are several problems with this proposition. A key ingredient of this theory is from analysis of moon rock samples brought back from the moon some years ago.
(1) The problem with this hypotheosis is that the moon rocks collected by the astronauts are not necessarily of luna origin. Like earth, the moon has taken a terrific pounding of 'extra terrestrial' material right through its existence and it could well be that 99.9% of the material on the surface of moon is not luna. We have all seen closeups of the luna surface and it shows impact cratering almost all over it. How would anyone know if they couldn't recognise the origin of each rock speciman? Sure we can find meteorites on earth and recognise them as having come from space, but we do have the rest of earth's rocks to compare them with. And the surface of earth has been sheilded from most rocks that are capable of causing impact craters, for many millions of years, but it has to be realised that if earth had no atmosphere the amount of cratering would be as much or more than is evident on the moon. However, all meteoric material entering our atmosphere becomes a part of our earth's mass. (2) Andesite, or something almost the same, was found on Mars, and that surprised the experts. However, the question is, why wouldn't Mars have similar rocks to us? I think it was Pathfinder that confirmed that Mars was earth-like 2.5 billion years ago. And last year it was announced that Venus is now like earth was 2.5 billion years ago. The moon relationship with earth seems not to have changed things very much at least in the evolutionary progression of these three planets. Mars quite certainly had oceans and some photographs show layers of what appears to be sedimentary material, - somewhat like the Grand Canyon, which, too, demonstrates a very deep layering of sedimentary origin.
(3) The suggestion that earth would be covered with more water than it has now, had the moon not existed, does not seem to ring true when we look at Mars today. Sure, Earth probably is losing water and will finish up like Mars, but that loss has probably been occurring for millions of years and may not be very different in its evolution compared with Mars that has two very much smaller moons than earth.
(4) I thought the idea that in the future a Jupiter moon could be hijacked to replace our own spiraling one when it retreats too far from earth to stabilise our axis inclination, was extremely far fetched. Wow! What an undertaking? I wonder what was planned for the demise of the existing one, since, if it is left in orbit, that would cause disturbing perturbations with our tides as the two moons neared each other.
Why don't these people think first?
Why not just simply use the same technology proposed to capture that distant moon, to slow our own moon down sufficiently to prevent it spiraling away? Fortunately our moon is not spinning on its axis so setting up a rocket thruster against its leading face would be all that is needed. It might take a few years but it would work. Surely I'm not the only one to have suggested this far simpler solution. - If I am, may I be nominated for a Nobel Prize or something, since I will have saved the world billions and billions of dollars in not having to fund a space hijacking team to go all those millions miles out to Jupiter, attach thruster rockets to the selected moon's surface, slow down and stop any rotation that it might have on its axis, push it in the direction of its orbital path, faster and faster until it spins out and away from Jupiter's gravitational hold. The thrust to be so perfectly calculated that it leaves Jupiter's hold at just the right place in space to then head it towards earth, all the time, controlling its speed and direction so very accurately that it lines up perfectly in distance from the earth, with correct angular momentum, etc. etc., and at the same time, another team sets up thrusters on our old redundant moon to quickly push it out of range on a collision course to the sun. I'm glad I won't be around if they go ahead and ignore my suggestion. Who dreams up these crazy ideas and presents them as serious proposals for public information?
(5) There are many problems with the fixed orbit scenario in which science is faced with having to conjure up all sorts of outlandish explanations for this and that in regards to the origin of the solar system. It is time to accept that planets did not form out in the orbits they now occupy. I think enough evidence exists to confirm that. Hydrogen and helium do not form into solids in cold space and if they did the lumps would have been swept into the forming sun as the nebular cloud collapsed. Solids do not remain suspended in an atmospheric environment unless that atmosphere is orbiting at the correct angular momentum to allow the solids to be in that same angular momentum. The very shape of a nebula of gas shows that it orbits much slower, and solids would fall toward the core and get burned up by friction against the ever increasing density of the gas cloud. This fate would also happen to all solids from outer space that were attracted to the nebula, which means that all solid objects, from dust-grains upwards, were swept into the sun.
(6) The suggestion that a supernovae was responsible for the nebula's collapse ignores the fact that a nebular has nothing to impede its growth. As it grows, so does its gravity reach further and further afield collecting gas and dust. The inevitable break-point comes when the core and gas at the center reaches a critical pressure that causes collapse; implosion and fusion. The void left by each implosion rapidly fills with incredible momentum and force and implodes again and again and again until the star reaches its maximum size, and that much larger than our sun is now.
The supernovae theory does not fit with the current ideas on the age of the universe. Our sun is said to be about 5 billion years old and it has about 6 billion years to reach its supernovae stage. This suggests that the supernova star that collapsed our nebular was 11 billion years old. 11 billion and 5 billion make 16 billion years. If the universe is also 16 billion years old, where did the supernovae come from that collapsed that star? And the star before that etc. etc. etc.......??????? Theories like this just don't add up.
Surely observable cosmic recycling demonstrates what really happens. It is not a series of accidents that there are more stars out there than there are grains of sand on all of earth's beaches. And life did not require one of those accidents either to establish itself on earth. Our solar system is not unique and did not rely upon another star blowing up in order to be born. The order existing in our planetal progression demonstrates that earth at the moment has evolved to its organic compatibility stage. How we treat it will influence how long that stage will last. Eventually there will be an introduction of suitable species onto the evolving Venus, many millions of years in the future, just as life was probably incubated here from Mars. (In both cases, by whom. you may ask). We should all know this and behave towards our planet appropriately. Venus is the virgin in many ancient texts - I wonder why.
Planets with their moons have to originate from the sun, one after the other and probably about 2 to 2.5 billion years apart. Bodes Law demonstrates a mathematically oriented spiral progression. (Yet no current scientific theory can offer a convincing reason why. Only Genesis Continuous provides a logical answer ). The solar wind creates a non-frictional passage for planets and moons to orbit freely. The material that formed each planetisimal is identical with asteroids and the molten material ejected by the sun. An asteroid belt was discovered in 1983 to be orbiting 2 solar widths away from the sun, (Right where I predicted it was back in 1973. - and I cannot see how that material could be ET. The sun has to be ever so much older than currently believed and has been losing its gravitational capacity from its birth, and that is how the orbiting planets and moons are being released (spiraling away) and are where they are.
Mercury did not have its mantle ripped off by a passing planet. It never had a mantle. (Even imagining such a thing is worse than science fiction. A bit like placing an orange against a vacuum cleaner and expecting all the peel to come off leaving the juice behind).
It is simply too young. Mercury’s surface shows terrific bombardment by material coming at it from all directions, so it will increase in size and become like Venus in about 2.5 billion years, when Venus has replaced earth.
Pluto will be next to spiral beyond the sun's hold and out into the space beyond the solar wind's reach. There it will wander away free to collect its hydrogen and helium to build its own nebular. Its nebula will continue to collect this material unimpeded by a solar wind. Eventually the pressure on its Pluto center will cause the atoms there to collapse and implode and a new star will be born. A series of implosions will occur until the star is large enough to use its solar wind to halt its growth.
My theory, Genesis Continuous, provides the answers to virtually all the problems that exist with other theories. - Sadly, there seems to be a universal mindset that planets are in fixed orbits and had to be formed in those same AUs. This incidentally, regardless of yet another fact, that the environmental differences between Neptune’s supposed orbital collection area and Mercury’s, is so vastly different; and the mind boggling implications of that fact seems to be completely ignored in Science's theories.
Summing UpAs our understanding expands, so miracles will decline proportionally. (DCH)
For a short time planets all over the universe will be organically capable, but their evolution progresses and an end to that phase is inevitable. The arid landscape of Mars is testimony to that.
As for the gas giants, they may or may not have ever been organically capable, and it may well be that Mars was the first in this system and besides Venus and Mercury, there could be others yet to be born that will be the stepping stones of life, within this solar system.
In one hundred years we have advanced from the first powered flight to landing people on the moon and sending spaceships to other planets. In one million years from now, (a mere drop in the time bucket) space travel technology will be advanced beyond our wildest dreams. So will genetic engineering and other sciences that will be used to colonise other worlds. (This does not mean that I condone the uncontrolled practice of Genetic Engineering. However, I am sure that some millions of years from now the whole science will be far better understood and controlled).
And all of this should happen, if we can put protocols in place now that will preserve our organic environment for those necessary millions of years ahead. I hope we can do it.
The Future
What should we expect then, in the future? Genesis Continuous is telling us that there is a progressive normality in our solar-system. It isn't all a bunch of miraculously executed remote events that shaped our solar system, or the universe, so the future is mapped out for it, governed by the natural laws that shape it and will keep on making it forever. Certainly, there are collisions and there are near misses, but they are not a necessary ingredient in forming a planet that can support organic life, or creating other planets and their moons, or placing a family of planets into a progressively and mathematically spaced series of orbits around their star.
Genesis Continuous brings it all into a sort of universal family; in which, to start with, planets and moons exist for two purposes, not one. Primarily they are the cores around which a nebula of gas can form, to create more stars. Secondly, during their journey, they can and do present an environment which will support organic life. That may sound rather incidental however, but all life forms have time to evolve through millions of generations during each planet's organic phase and it's up to humanity to make the most of the time that we exist as individuals; 'tho we cannot expect the universe to slow down or time to stand still while we indulge ourselves beyond the capacity of our environment to sustain us. This is a simple fact.
Earth does have a future. But if humanity does not make an effort to put back what it has destroyed, and halt environmental pollution, such very rapid changes, as we are inflicting upon our atmosphere, land and water,, could make every part of our planet so hostile that the food-chain may be completely disrupted.
It is time for all humanity to unite in love and respect for one another and to relay that response to the very atmosphere, soil and water we need for survival. No more holy wars, and no more fighting in the name of mythically misunderstood Gods; Whilst we do not unite, we demonstrate our immaturity. Whilst we take up arms against each other we physically demonstrate our fanatical resort to cruelty, vengeance, callousness, greed, destructiveness; - and these are the sins that all of those religions were trying to stop us from practicing. We still live in a barbaric world where the rallying cry from both sides is to 'God', whose text is conveniently changed from 'Thou shalt not kill' to, 'Thou shalt kill". As long as mankind behaves this way, what hope is there for this planet and all future ones? Search this site
Genesis Continuous - Complete