|| Home. | Universe Galaxies And Stars Archives. | |
|| Universe | Big Bang | Galaxies | Stars | Solar System | Planets | Hubble Telescope | NASA | Search Engine ||
The Ice Age. New Theory. Full Essay.
What are the chances of anyone or any living creature surviving the next ice age, the glaciers, the Artic conditions? We might conclude them to be remote to say the least. With mountainous snow drifts over two hundred feet deep, continents turned in to glaciers, perpetual darkness, howling winds, freezing rivers and lakes, the prospect of survival remain anything other than bleak.
They'll be no food, no roads, rails, air travel, no schools, hospitals or power.
It'll be a dark, barren wasteland where only the very fit, and the very ruthless make it through. It'll be an orgy of murder, killing, cannibalism and death where humans are reduced to eating humans. And if that thought isn't frightening enough, then the next ice age could be with us in a few short years, not centuries or millennia. You think I joke?
Over the past few decades, to show the realism of ice age phenomena, science has come up with some rather startling evidence. Samples taken from the polar ice caps show ice age is real. Residue samples from the polar ice caps have shown ice ages to be periodic, occurring about every 10,000 years or so. And if that wasn't bad enough, these samples taken from Antarctica, which have been forensically examined, show chronologically, that the last known ice age happened on Earth around 9,500 years ago. And that means the next ice age is just around the corner.
However, the real crux of the problem concerning this delicate subject has always been, what causes ice age? Why should our planet suddenly take it upon itself to turn into one great big snowball? There are many theories to explain why this happens, from the sublime to the profoundly ridiculous. Probably the best know of these is based around vulcanology, and the cyclical activity of large volcanos.
What a lot of volcanologists have predicted is the extreme power of huge volcanos spewing smoke and ash into the upper atmosphere, blotting out the Sun and sending temperatures here on Earth plummeting. And I suppose, to some extent the theory seems plausible, or at least more plausible than other theories such as impacting asteroids or comets. Although these ideas seem somewhat sound it should be remembered, most of the postulation remains at best speculative, and at worse laughable. The simple fact of the matter is, once closer scrutiny is offered, gravity would not allow for the extreme height of Volcano eruption needed to blanket the planet with enough material.
Further to this, huge forest fires which are considered to produce more smoke and ash than even the biggest volcanos appear to have little impact on climatical temperatures, let alone plunge us into an ice age.
Personally I believe a much more profound answer is needed, and that will probably come from a piece of theoretical physics, basing the assumption on a cosmological criteria, rather than any individual event, or sequence of events here on Earth . But how to prove it.
Without being unduly alarmist, I think I've discovered the route cause of the problem and have gone some way to explaining the reasons why ice age take place in pervious papers: the rewrite of Einsteinian special relativity and the Solar vortex theory. If we espouse the axioms of these two highly original ideas with the expanded paper on planetary evolution, we may have just opened a can of worms that otherwise would have best been left undisturbed.
Little did I know when I first rewrote Einsteinian physics how significant the postulation would be in other academic areas. I believed when I managed to breech the velocity of light it might at best allow for the movement of extraterrestrial craft, and show why we don't see other planetary motion by means of Doppler registration.
But there was more to come. The premiss of this argument is based exclusively round the movement of light and where light first appears. Einstein suggested light comes from a star. He said it travels directly towards us. I blew that belief out of the water by proposing light first appears central to any two stars, and then travels to said stars both, equally and proportionately at the same time.
It was a radical idea, an idea which upset academia and made me somewhat of an outcast amongst them; even though they chose not to measure the built-in prediction which accompanied the theory.
To show the rewrite of special relativity right, I included a measurable prediction. I offered the ability to either prove, or disprove as the case may be, the theories validity by looking for an aberration in the starlight.
I argued, that during an eclipse (either lunar or solar) the starlight we see as a pin-prick of light in the night sky will rise or fall, depending on whether the eclipse is lunar or solar. With a solar eclipse it will rise, then fall back to its original position, whereas if it's a lunar eclipse it will perform the opposite task: starlight will fall, before lifting and returning to its normal value. This got me thinking.
It was Edwin Huddle who first mooted the possibility of an expanding universe, and by doing so, destroyed the steady state theory, (our universe remains constant over time) when he watched the regression of galaxies. What Hubble saw was Galaxies drifting away from us with an ubiquity. It seemed sensible, after all, the event could be observed.
However, if we take account of what I've said, ie starlight has been evaluated et a different locality, and can alter position dependant on the volume of mass at any given juncture in its history, then Hubble might be as wrong as Einstein. Maybe Hubble hadn't witnessed the regression of Galaxies after all. Maybe Hubble had merely witnessed the regression of light, and the universe does remain in a steady-state model. From what I could see, the proposal was more than interesting hypothesis to kick about when there was nothing else to do, in fact it became damn right alarming.
One inescapable fact science doesn't mention when they talk candidly about ice age phenomenon is the irrefutable fact that our planet is gradually losing its gravity. Suddenly, I understood the deadly implications of what was about to become abundantly obvious. Hubble witnessed a regression of galaxies, not because our universe is ever expanding, but because we ourselves are losing our gravity. And that meant, our star, the Sun must be cooling down.
If our star is slowly relinquishing its gravitational influence on our planet, then under the rewrite of special relativity the starlight we see in the night sky must naturally distance itself from our own observational point. And if that is the case, then the secondary implications of any such theory are horrendous for us indeed.
I could see our beautiful world was slowly dying.
In the early stages of an impending ice age things might not seem to be too serious.
No doubt we'll put it down as an irregular weather pattern or blame el-ninio. But as reality sinks in, something much more apparent will become noticeable. The weather won't heat up again as it has done so often in the past.
Humanity and all which surrounds us will be on the cusp of the greatest battle for survival ever witnessed. This is the real Armageddon.
With the idea fermenting in my mind, I decided to model a theory based around the laws of probability and see what would happen if this event gathered momentum, just as any good scientist does with impacting asteroid theory.
I said initially, that I don't wish to unduly alarm people, and I hold steadfast to that belief. But I do believe it imperative to warn people of the implications of this theory, so they can lobby their respective parliamentary representitive for a course of investigation to be pursued .
The first thing I needed to ask myself was, would this cosmological event be a slow, steady progressive approach to an ice age or a rampant precipitation which would signal the end of the world as we know it? The initial conclusion I came up with was a sobering one. With available research conducted over the last one hundred years, I noticed Hubble's prediction of an accelerated regression of galaxies, but by also showing Hubble's early work to be wrong, I understood this isn't an accelerated regression of galaxies, but an accelerated cooling down of our star.
To grasp what I say next, you have to view the starlight we witness in the night sky like a man about to climb a mountain.
If the man struggled up the mountain, then we would witness a collapsing universe, as he reaches the summit, the universe would hold stable. It would neither collapse or expand. However, as the man starts to gather momentum down the other side of the mountain, we would see the universe quickly begin to expand, all the time gathering pace.
Indeed the event would be precipitous.
In the early stages, as this event takes place, we'd witness inconsistent weather patterns, such as cold summers and hot winters as the star, our Sun desperately struggles to capture the last Solar System gases.
Contrary to popular belief, it won't be as simple as just getting progressively cold But as those last remnants of gas are scooped up and swallowed by the dying star, temperatures will start to consistently fall. With less gravity, winds, hurricanes and tornados will become prevalent With more rainfall, land will become swamped and the naturally absorb will produce landmass containing much more water.
The suns evaporation principle will be greatly reduced. Then temperatures will fall still further. The sodden land will freeze much more quickly because of the water absorption, and allow the snows to settle much more quickly, and because the land is already frozen, the snows ability to thaw will be diminished.
More snow will continuously fall, the Sun fade and darkness manifest everywhere. It might not be unreasonable to suggest we'll get some sunlight, but the quantity will be so feeble it won't be worth having.
Think how a few days heavy snow effects your life at the moment. The trains don't run, airports and docks are closed, motorways are shut and every moving thing comes to an abrupt halt. A weeks snow in a modern western country literally closes a nation down.
Now picture the weeks running into months, to years. How would we cope? The simple answer is, we wouldn't. We would be left to our own devices by government, left to fend for ourselves and human nature takes over and a Darwinian survival of the fittest enters the equation.
Shops and supermarkets would exhaust their stocks in a matter of days, animals left in the fields would either starve to death or perish in the sub-zero temperatures. Power lines would freeze and crumble, telephone exchanges grind to a halt, water pipes freeze.
Outside your home snow would blanket everything: trees, bushes, houses, cars, everything. Even if you pould venture out or find a vantage point to survey the ambient area all you'd see in hundreds of miles of pure white snow.
You'll be alone without any supplies, no one coming to help, and only your neighbours to rely on. Can you trust them? Will they share their depleted rations with you? Would you share yours with them? Their is no work, no hospitals, no schools.
Your home is a tomb buried in hundreds of feet of drifting snow. How far would you be prepared to go to survive. water will be plentiful, you simply melt the snow. Heat will be more difficult. First you'll have to burn your furniture, and when that runs out, acavenge for other supplies. But so will everyone else. Would you kill your neighbours for a few sticks of firewood? Would you fight to the death over an old animal carcass to feed your family? Would you endorse cannibalism?
You might consider these insignificant inconsideration's. It will never happen. But we know this event does happen. Look out of the window and picture the above, and understand every living creature has an built in survival instinct.
You won't just give up, I guarantee it. You will fight to the last breath, sacrifice every piece of dignity you've ever been given for a few mouthfuls of food. Mankind has a propensity for survival, and will do whatever's necessary to sustain his pathetic existence. The only thing to cling to is the belief things will eventually change, that another body of matter will fuse with the star and heat will return to the solar system. That body of matter which regenerates the Solar System should theoretically be Mercury.
But this will present problems in itself. With intense heat permeating the solar system, planet Earth will begin to thaw. With so much ice and snow, torrential rains and floods will take over from the Artic like conditions. Temperatures will go from one extreme to the other before the planet finally settles down. Monsoons, tidal waves, towns and cities will all be laid waste by freak weather patterns. Temperatures might reach 60, 70, 80 degrees Celsius.
If the ice age hasn't claimed you - then the tropical temperatures that follow, will.
Go To Print Article
Universe - Galaxies and Stars: Links and Contacts
|| GNU License | Contact | Copyright | WebMaster | Terms | Disclaimer | Top Of Page. ||