| Home. | Universe Galaxies And Stars Archives. | 
Universe Galaxies Stars logo.
     | Universe | Big Bang | Galaxies | Stars | Solar System | Planets | Hubble Telescope | NASA | Search Engine |

Universe and galaxies.

Ten Years Since The Revolution at Amazon.

SAS Black Ops at Amazon.
Amazon Kindle EBook Reader: Click For More Information.

its surrounding solar system, Galaxies and Universe beyond.

This is the chapter that could probably account for a book all by itself, and so limited for space, we have to take a very candid, and condensed view of our planet, Earth, and possibly every other planet in the known universe, regardless of how many worlds there might be secretly hidden anonymously out there.

I said some time ago now, when it came to opening the universe, constructing its Galaxies and stars, I did not so much favour a calamitous exchange, Big Bang, but rather a more steady application, and for our Earth, I will remain of the same opinion. Some how I think mankind's obsession with explosions, is motivated by his own destructive desire, rather than that of universal wisdom.

However, in saying that, there must be arbitration to my belief somewhere, and so we will accept our star, and every other star was born of an early hot fusion process.

If at some time in its distant past, the Solar System was born through a detonation of globular matter, and then showered the ambient Solar System Volcano like in a primordial gas soup, we might just be able to engineer a chain of events to build what we see around us today.

If our Sun fused, ejected all of its matter, and then collapsed back into what we termed a solar-vortex, we may show a regulatory production cycle capable of constructing a Solar System with its Planets and life, as we view it today.

But to achieve this momentous task, we would indeed, need to introduce a reason as to why it might happen. And we call this reason: Cause and effect. That basically shows, as one region generates a principle cause, it will naturally effect another region in a domino relationship. Heat would be the most productive mechanism to evaluate during this period, simply because of the substance around us we deal with.

When we talk openly of sculpting the world, we have to remember, every molecule, particle and atom is delicately constructed via its own atomic weight, and change the weight and you change its direction in history.

Therefore, in dealing with the slow structural make-up of an evolutionary solar system, we must deduce the star not to be globular fashion, but more salutary in its manufactured state. I.E., that vorticies principle we initially spoke of. And if this type of star, was born through a fusion exchange, then the body would have only a short, and limited time to burn.

But if the life cycle can be exacerbated by the production of burning more fuel, we might literally see the basis of fluctuating temperatures throughout our entire solar system, and could assume, as a young early Solar System ejected matter, probably of an iron base, around our infant region, the star would eventually seek and be motivated to claim that matter which belongs to it.

However, the star should theoretically, be presented with some problems. These problems of course, being initiated by the laws of gravity.

As a young star distributes its matter among the solar system, the matter must naturally try to drift back to its point of origin. The star itself. Yet, as this precipitous march gets under way, heat from our star should logically prohibit the event from occurring. And so, rather than an inexorable continuation toward recovery of particle matter, what we see, is equally distributed forces which paradoxically push and pull simultaneous.

In other words, as the star is determined to retrieve its matter, that material which it initially showered the embryonic Solar System with, heat produced from the star forbids matter being quickly recovered. And thus, creates spin!

If early matter cannot be recycled, but cannot be pushed farther away either, its natural laws of motion, say it must continue in a fluid state, that of revolving around the hot early vortex. Only at a discrete distance from its primary core. This allows a steady participation of atomic particles, to be constantly attracted to a larger central body. We might explain this more simply by saying, an aging process would show a conclusive geography of matter throughout the Solar System if we looked for it.

But this geography wouldn't just take account of size, but probably more important, gas dilution surrounding any newly forming planet.

If we then view the Planets of our own solar system, we see those of Mars and Mercury contain little, if no gas, whereas larger, outer Planets such as Jupiter and Neptune contain large elementary gas levels. This alone offers us, what some might term, a subjective argument to pursue a stronger, more natural evolutionary process, where life itself, is only as evolutionary as the planet, its surrounding solar system, Galaxies and universe beyond.

We might be forgiven, for saying this continuous advancement is only possible, if all cosmic forces play their role fully within the equation. And if that is the case, those inhabitants of any planet, could only advance to what lays before them today, with an equal contribution.

Therefore we must deduce, that inferior planets, those Planets ahead of us in the solar system, should all show signs of dramatic dilution effects. If the application of heat, produces erosion or indentation, or other marks around the planet itself, then some fundamental questions need to be asked: Least of all, is there life out there?

The answer is probably as intriguing as the question itself, and possibly just as ambiguous. We will never know the full answer, simply because we will never be able to count the abundance of stars in the universe. But already, with an estimation of billions of stars, then with this hypothesis, will come, eventually, billions of different species, simply because the evolution of the stars internal atomic matrix's, its process of fission reaction, determines the principle elementary cycles of blending atoms into an inhabital world.

It is this determination of heat that produces the cause and effect so vital in the constructing, building - and shaping of the foundations of ours, and every other world.

The star heats up, and then cools down. As this process continues, we constantly reinstall gravitational levels to the solar system, for planetary motion, and assume, that if this can happen with big gravity such as planets, the theory is perfectly acceptable with small gravity, atoms!

Any of us can witness this basic law of weight distribution on a hot summer's day. As the temperature rises, carbon being a heavy gas, rises more slowly the Hydrogen or oxygen, which are both lighter gases. And if this carbonaceous process, works with the same thorough application of stellar activity, it should not be too difficult to envisage an embryonic period, where our planet slowly begins to envelop itself in a cocooned shell of carbon based material.

Obviously at this point, when its casing, that enbryonic shell has formed with an ubiquity, a heat vacuum is produced inside the planet, the temperature builds - and quickly uses all the available oxygen.

We might like to view this happening, with an easier association. So just imagine a soccer ball with the air slowly being removed. As the ball has the air sucked from it, we would see, a slow and subtle depreciation of the ball, that soons becomes a ball with indentation. And now, if we apply that analogy to a large planetary gas giant, what we see is an inner vacuum start to collapse the planet surface. It begins to collapse back. With this process under way, surface liquid gas has no option, except to run away into the caverns, crevices and sink-holes. It's starting to form rivers, lakes and oceans!

But with liquid gas running off of the surface, other areas become exposed to more hostile conditions, and thus, begin to produce a solid landmass.

We could deduce, from that original thought, where we slowly craft a planet, through temperature regulatory heat control, there would-be no room for plate-tectonics. The surface of our Earth made-up of different plates, which shift around.

But to suggest such a thing, might make science defend their view of plate-tectonics, and say the science governing the theory is 99% certain. And in fairness to them, I can understand why. Grounded in a scientific ethos myself, I had been raised with the same observational evidence, and only in later years, did those observations became somewhat perverse to me.

The reason is this. Plate-tectonics is based on an idea, known as Pangea. One, or all Earth, and shows many hundreds of millions of years ago, all the Earth was glued together as one solid landmass. But due to continental drift, those individual plates gradually distanced themselves from one another. However, this has never accounted for, nor has it accurately explained, how one species made its journey from one place to another, once open expanses of water was placed between each landmass.

I studied this problem, taking into account small islands as a model, and became extremely alarmed at the lack of observational thought which had initially explained sciences' postulation on the subject. For although an observation had been made, as to where land might drift from, a central locality, the principle of observation for small land mass, those islands we just mentioned, was not really catered for.

Smaller land masses appear to have popped-up out of nowhere, and so, an associated thought needed to be applied. Science, and vulcanologists immediately suggested Volcano activity. But if we are honest, this vision of small island land mass doesn't really fit a sensible paradigm. As a lot of these smaller islands do not, and did not contain volcanic activity. Therefore, as I studied a large flat atlas one day, I became increasingly alarmed at the abundance of earthquake activity centralised tpward an equatorial point.

By that, I mean 95% of all earthquake phenomenon was occurring around a central, planetary belt of our earth's surface.

When the thought struck me, I simply couldn't believe what I saw. And instantly, I began to investigate more lateral thought. I immediately inspected the rest of the Planets in the solar system, and was greeted with Saturn's magnificent rings. I realised at that point, all Planets were producing a high level concentration of gravity at those central points. And by including the elementary laws of spin, a surface depreciation could be included in the equation. But what I had to do, was show definitively though, how earthquakes might manifest, and even with strong, some might even suggest, copious evidence, from a scientific community, I needed a logical appraisal. Which I found that by viewing our earth's rotation.

The moment we see the earth's spinning action, we should understand that what happens is, gravity inflicts its universal and cosmological laws mainly on one side of the planet's surface. We might like to think of it like buckling our trouser belts!

If we were to feed the leather of the belt, through the buckle, and pull it back tight on itself, we would see the flesh of our stomach all folds in the same direction. And if gravity produced the same effect as the belt, only on cosmological terms, what we would have, would be the evidence, that Planets make a slow, progressional path towards our star, with their size literally shrinking as they lose distance from the Sun.

By this time, I was on a roll. How could I have been so stupid not to have realised its implications previously?

Suddenly, as I watched a TV programme later that evening, on Dinosaur extinction, it all became apparent.

Not only had I found the foundation of planetary construction, but I had also found the very route to life as we might understand it today. For the first time ever, I decided the Dinosaur had no more been irradiated by a big meteorite, than Britain had been constructed by the Pixies.

And so, a meteor didn't kill the dinosaurs then?

Let's get this whole argument into perspective, and upset a few people here. For this section, I won't even be polite. Enough people have had their intelligence insulted for a long enough period, and it's high time it stopped.

At the moment, the accepted view of Dinosaur extinction, goes something like this: 65 million years ago a large asteroid, about 10k in diameter impacted against the earth's surface, sending dust and debris in to the earth's atmosphere, and caused massive climatic change in weather patterns, that inevitably led to the extinction of the dinosaur.

But why it should kill dinosaurs, and not other reptilian, which were around at the time, is a mystery, as is the reason why it did not kill off bird species which were also apparent.

It was a very selective impact in other words, where a solid, un-intelligent object with no power to think, became choosy in its attack, and what it decided to kill. And that is not only unlikely, it's profoundly bloody ridiculous.

But once the theory gained moment, certain elements of science saw an opportunity, and cynically usurped a gullible public, fleecing them out of hundreds of millions of pounds of tax payers money for research. Other scientists endorsed the idea, as it gave them an opportunity to inform the public of impending doom, and gain money for more research into how we might protect ourselves from impacting astronomical objects.

The main proponent of exacerbating the idea was the Americans, the White House in particular, under Ronald Regan.

As the impacting meteorite theory gathered momentum, it manifested itself conveniently at the same time the US tax payer was becoming alarmed at the high cost of the military's SDI project: The Strategic Defence Initiative or Star-wars as it came to be known. Regan, an ex-Hollywood actor, with massive contacts in the film industry, encouraged the movie makers to advance the US government's belief, and together, politicians, scientists, and Cosmologists looted the people's pockets blind.

And never in the endeavour of humanity, have so many, paid so much, for so little. And that is why, most of Hollywood spends its life at the White House rather than the movie set, why presidents holiday in Hollywood producer's homes, and the entire industry is advanced, unashamedly throughout the free world.

Possibly the greatest paradox in modern history, is to believe, the media is free. It's as much state controlled in the free world, as it is in any former communist country. But with cynical opportunists plundering people's pockets, the story of meteorite impact was allowed to mushroom and grow.

A few well chosen soundbites were added: "The smoking gun!" was one carefully crafted phrase. This came in the shape of a large crater, known as the Manson impact structure in Iowa, USA.

But when this proved to fit the date, but not the size needed, another site was looked for. But that would mean two large meteorites impacted at the same time; even though science itself proclaimed this only ever happened with considerable duration's between them, and seemed to make little, or no difference. They got round this imponderable, by saying, like Shoemaker/levy which broke into several pieces, large asteroids could follow each other through space, and a double impact could occur, which really blows their theory of considerable time frames between each impacting body clean out of the water.

But with the end of the cold war, and the Soviets no longer a threat, and budgets desperately needed to be retained, the evidence, dare one call it that, has been fixed, and an apology from these people to the tax payer is long over due.

What we should understand, is the discussion of impacting meteors or asteroids has never been about our planet, dinosaurs or our future, it has always been about that small clique of people who control, manipulate - and decides the direction we advance, be their decision founded or not.

Yet when evidence was needed to substantiate their claim, it was quickly found to support their postulate. Tektites, rich in iridium and shocked quartz, convinced scientists to concentrate their search around North America. But what was never disclosed to the public or media, was the fact, most of this substance, even that found in sedimentary layers of clay, is naturally produced by our Earth anyway.

Again, this basic fact never prohibited anyone from some mad rush to justify their own belief, and just like rocket technology, that cannot defy special relativity, there is no foundation for broaching the subject of Dinosaur extinction through meteorite impaction.

This belief is public misinformation and the belief it is public misinformation is vindicated when we view the latest martian probe launched to coincide with the movie "Independence day". A blaze of publicity, espoused the two. Conveniently, a meteorite was discovered in Antartica, we are told, which showed us how life was in abundance on the red planet millions of years ago. But no one was ever informed, the meteorite in question was actually ten years old, had been sitting at the back of a cupboard gathering dust, and the concentrate of fossil life inside was just as abundant down here, as it is up there. Public duped, money obtained, movie sold, science happy! What a world: God bless America.

Yet, the real facts, are somewhat more disturbing.

We can continue with our theory, where planetary evolution becomes the mainstay of our belief, we would see a planet, as it moves in towards the star, slowly shrinking in dimension. If this process continues, then residule landmass, as gas runs away, shows what might have really happened to the Dinosaur and other life.

Let's imagine, a large gas giant, like Jupiter, its surface thick in early hot gases, we can understand, growth of living organism might accelerate beyond its natural growth cycle and produce giant species. This belief also give us reasons to assume dinosaurs skin never obtained fur, as heat would forbid the event. But with a planet moving cyclically towards the star, an inner vacuum would suck the surface down. We might believe this causes crater construction, for when the planet turns, yet pulls simultaneous, the surface must collapse.

If we look skywards today, we can see this pitting on the Moon surface, the martian surface and other such bodies scattered throughout the solar system. And we might be justified at that point to ask why haven't these impacting meteors caused such a peppering of our own surface, and say, as long as we have a natural fluid rain this process will not occur as the surface of our world is structurally sound; except those areas where water's not apparent.

As well as puncture wounds, designed to make us believe they are craters caused by impacting heavenly bodies, we could also ask how those places like the grand canyon formed? It's the same principle, only with a different shape scarred. As are our oceans, ravines, gully's and everything else indented on our surface.

And the only difference between those symmetrical puncture wounds, and the more obscure shape of other surface structural collapse, is the border identification.

But we can easily explain that, by gravitational forces, during highly accelerated periods in the planet's history.

If, as the volume of mass to our star increases, then the vacuum inside the Earth will theoretically collapse its surface, in a circular depreciation. This theory also naturally explains all crater construction, and removes any possibility of large asteroids impacting against ours, or anyone else's planetary surface.

As temperature from the star builds, a pitting on the surface becomes identifiable with elementary gravitational law, and the process of spin. We might even consider this event happening when we look at crop-circles. Although, I personally believe, others responsible for them. However, if this process of surface collapse continues on forming planets, and liquid gas runs away, to leave residual land mass, we must consider the possibility, that whatever remains, stranded on a solid surface, will become susceptible to gravitational influence. Hence, dinosaurs begin to devolve, as well as evolve.

We can also deduce, from fossil remains, certain smaller dinosaurs from those early forming periods, had feathers. Possibly similar to the feathers on ducks. Although, for that period, I think it highly unlikely they ever established flight.

The reason we reach this conclusion, is because of a carboniferous atmosphere. Birds would have found it difficult to get airborne, yet, with a dilutionary effect on gas molecule, we debated the theory, where oxygen and Hydrogen continuously refined early particles, until oxygen took precedence. And once a high level of sustainable oxygen is generated, bird population's would have commenced their epic journey. And this alone should be seen as another supporting reason, to show the world not struck by asteroids. Theoretically, this should allow us to hone our belief and move toward a more plausible explanation for the shrinkage of dinosaurs, and an aerial abundance of ornithological flight.

At that point, we should conclude, dinosaurs never did become extinct, they merely shrank in size, because the laws of gravity say they must.

With a high exertion of force, stunting growth from hatchlings, as they emerge into their new environmental surrounding, we can assume their potential for further growth limited by the natural laws of physics which surround them.

But what you might have also noticed, from this brief encounter with a structural progression towards fruition of a planetary matrix is, we said our planet, and all others begin their journey towards the star as a large gas giant. And as heat builds, they literally shrink, gas turns to liquid - and runs away from its surface.

This means life, as Darwin predicted, would never have risen from the sea, developed legs and suddenly stood on two legs to resemble what we see around us today. It means evolution, as the planet dried - and solidified, would have taken a duel, evolutionary fork in the road. Two sets of evolution would have engineered themselves and progressed through different environmental changes: Terrene, and marine. Thus man's closest ancestor, would not be primates, but would become the Dolphin.

And so, my closest ancestor might be a fish!

A mammal actually. A class of creatures that suckle their young. These most majestic creatures display all the attributes of a highly intellectual species, on a par with us; perhaps more so.

They have a non aggressive behaviour towards mankind, and where possible seek to bond, which seems strange in itself, as most non intellectual creatures, apes included, transmit open hostility, even towards humans. But Dolphin's are significantly different.

We have to investigate the strong possibility, maybe even strong probability, that as the world devolved in size, evolution went it separate ways. Mankind and Dolphins trod their own path at that point, as each was given no other option.

As mankind found himself stranded on solidifing landmass, the Dolphin would have accepted his fate lay elsewhere; in the mighty oceans and beyond.

The reason we have to draw this distinction, between mankind and the ape, is significant in itself. The strongest recognition between any two species, must be that of the brain. It is the single most advanced piece of kit that differentiates us from the beast. Body design is irrelevant, as all creatures, determine their own characteristics, but only the mind determines the difference between a natural conscious thought, and that which operates on instinct.

We must assume, from our own being, even under legislatory process or the highest principle of law, the ability to problem solve and take responsibility for our actions is based entirely from intellectual perspective.

If we consider the Dolphin to have honed and perfected its psyche, to the same extent, as its brain and ours are strikingly similar, and create additionally its ability to harness a cohesion with others of a same intellectual power, we must concluded, that when evolution took its separate paths, the Dolphin and ourselves were cousins that bid each other a tearful farewell.

And so we changed at that point to what we are today?

We would have progressed over many many millions of years. But what we can be certain of is, evolution could never have acted under Darwinian theory, as it would still continue today if it did. And I know some might find this outrageous to hear, but what would make us us, is bullying.

Earlier, we said we'd show biblical text to be right, that the meek shall inherit the earth, earlier on, and that, we will now do.

If we imagine a strong, forceful set of creatures, we must deduce that the physically strong among them will always dominate those within proximity. The weak will get pushed to the periphery - and eventually driven away from the group, as the strong seek to advance their genes at the expense of the weaker members of the group. And if this is the case, then we should assume, that not just the males will be driven out, but also certain females.

These would create more peripheral groups of similar creatures, yet not quite so brutal in their nature. With their strength, in the brute sense, reduced, they must employ an alternative. A more lateral route to survive. And that means using their inititive.

If we use, for our hypothesis, an early tribe of humans, we might consider the powerful, more physical members will oust those of a more servile nature. The tribe would strengthen physically. But contrary to that, those of a servile nature, who are ejected, produce a higher intelligent stratergy, to ensure their own survival, which must become instinctive in itself.

And so, where the initial strength came from a kernel of brute force, a secondary, more cunning strength is quickly established. This is passed on to the next generation, and the progression towards more intellectual thought becomes apparent.

Yet new, thinking, primordial species, are still susceptible to attack, and so, must retain a lot of the former characteristics installed within them. And so, although an emerging species of thinking people, slowly progresses, violent tendencies still remain. And once again, they push a certain few from the group, and again the ability to replicate, and think becomes more fortuitous.

However, they still face the problem of more superior groups, that would no doubt remain in fairly close proximity, and so to keep those more vicious individuals at bay, the intelligence starts to produce weaponry. Maybe throwing stones to start with, then a big stick, a flint head axe follows on, then a spear - a piece of metal is converted into a knife, and those of a lower intellect are systematically held at back. Thus we show how evolution is based entirely on the ability of the brain, as we suggested with the Dolphin.

But possibly more important, we also determined, a fashion, where stronger creatures might find their natural selection stunted by the intelligence of those they evicted. This means an observation can be made. The meek, those thrown out by other members of the group with more physical strength, can progress to a stage where development formulates a strategy of technological superiority, and allows them to eventually dominate the stronger.

And this theory, should be more productive in evolutionary thinking, as it explains why we do not witness that production line needed under Darwinian thought.

We can show advancement in the intellectual sense, yet simultaneously prohibit those further behind, continuing their progression. In other words, we evolve, but stop the evolution as we do so. What we might term, an evolutionary paradox.

Below is a list of chapters for the Metaphysics Anthology. The book itself is designed as abit of fun! One man thinking out loud. You should not see it as science, merely enjoy the imagination of the human mind in full swing.

  Go To Print Article  

Universe - Galaxies and Stars: Links and Contacts

the web this site
 | GNU License | Contact | Copyright | WebMaster | Terms | Disclaimer | Top Of Page. |