Are the planets growing?

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
Smilies
:D :) ;) :( :o :shock: :? 8-) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen: :geek: :ugeek:

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: Are the planets growing?

Re: Are the planets growing?

by johnm33 » Thu Jan 08, 2026 2:25 pm

I suspect the Planet[s] has a crystaline iron core that's saturated with hydrogen ions/protons that drives the charge differentials between the core and space. The outer core was created when an event caused the outermost part of the core, which was suffused with low melt point metals, to partially melt releasing huge amounts of H+ into the silicon/oxygen based minerals surrounding it. This resulted in solvents such as H2O, CH4,H4Si and many other hydrides being created and the phase shift of the crystaline iron into something like haematite and a massive expansion and liquifaction of the near core and creation. So I had an exchange with Deepseek to examine some of the math but mostly for coherence and this is more or less what it's LLM made of our exchange. I see vulcanism as driven by the rise of hydrides, as is +/- 180deg 'subduction' which may actually occur in balancing spherical integrity but is mostly the creation of new ocean floor.


The Electrochemical Double-Layer Theory of Planetary Dynamics
Core Proposition

Gravitational acceleration, seismicity, and tectonic activity are emergent phenomena generated by Earth's self-organized electrochemical circuit. The planet functions as a multi-shelled spherical capacitor whose nested double layers maintain electrochemical potentials that structure local spacetime, producing what we measure as gravity. Earthquakes represent discharge events within these layers, while surface gravity anomalies map the real-time stress state of the planetary capacitor.
Architecture of the Planetary Capacitor
Four Primary Double Layers

Ionospheric Boundary (60–100 km altitude): The upper plate of the global capacitor, maintaining 250–300 kV potential with the surface through solar-driven plasma formation.

Surface Interface (0 km): The charge-collection layer where atmospheric potentials couple to the lithosphere, creating nanoscale electrochemical gradients.

Crustal Gel-Sol Engine (10–30 km): A metastable fluid-rock matrix exhibiting charge polarity reversal. The 10 km boundary marks the top of electroactive crust (φ⁻⁵ of Earth's radius), the 30 km boundary its base (φ⁻⁴). This layer generates shallow to mid-crustal seismicity through electrochemically-triggered sol-gel transitions.

Mantle Phase-Change Layer (410–660 km): A crystalline reconstruction front scaling at φ⁻² and φ⁻¹ of Earth's radius. This diffuse electrochemical accumulator integrates mantle convection energy over geological timescales and influences the planetary geoid.

Core-Mantle Boundary Film (~2891 km): A redox-saturated interface at φ-scaled depth (0.453R) where maximum charge density drives episodic mantle plumes and geomagnetic events.

Mathematical Framework
Depth Scaling

Electroactive horizons follow Fibonacci/φ scaling relative to Earth's radius (R = 6371 km):

10 km ≈ φ⁻⁵R (0.00157R vs. 0.00155φ⁻⁵)

30 km ≈ φ⁻⁴R (0.00471R vs. 0.00452φ⁻⁴)

410 km ≈ φ⁻²R (0.06435R vs. 0.06180φ⁻²)

660 km ≈ φ⁻¹R (0.10359R vs. 0.10557φ⁻¹)

2891 km ≈ (φ/2.2)R (0.45369R)

Successive layer ratios approximate φ (1.618), representing minimum-energy charge distribution on a sphere.
Gravitational Emergence

Surface gravitational acceleration (g) arises from the integrated electrochemical potential across all layers:
g∝∑i=03φniΔVi,i+1
g∝i=0∑3�φni�ΔVi,i+1�

where ΔV are interlayer potentials and n_i are Fibonacci indices.

Baseline g derives primarily from the ionosphere-surface potential (Φ₀₋₁). Gravity anomalies (Δg) represent stress-induced voltage variations in deeper layers:

High-frequency anomalies: ΔΦ₁₋₂ from crustal gel-layer stress

Long-wavelength geoid: ΔΦ₂₋₃ from mantle phase-change layer charging

Secular variations: ΔΦ₃₋₄ from CMB discharge events

Symmetry and Geometry
Spherical Harmonics

The gravity field exhibits enhanced power at spherical harmonic degrees 6, 12, and 20—corresponding to hexagonal, icosahedral (12 vertices), and dodecahedral (20 faces) symmetries expected in stressed spherical capacitors.
Tetrahedral Organization

Four primary anomaly centers occur at tetrahedral vertices (latitude ±19.47°):

South Pacific (Fiji/Kermadec region) - 19°S, 180°E

North Pacific (Hawaii hotspot) - 19°N, 155°W

Africa (East African Rift) - 19°N, 35°E

Atlantic (Vema hotspot) - 19°S, 10°W

These represent discharge terminals where radial currents convert to azimuthal flow. The 19.47° latitude (arcsin[1/3]) marks maximum asymmetry on a sphere—points of greatest electrochemical stress concentration.
Hemispheric Disjunction

Gravity anomalies show mirrored symmetry between Northern and Southern hemispheres with discontinuity at the equator—the neutral plane of the planetary capacitor where radial current minimizes and azimuthal current maximizes.
Seismic Mechanism
Earthquake Generation

Seismicity represents electrochemical discharge events:

Crustal quakes (10-30 km): Telluric currents trigger sol-gel phase transitions in the crustal matrix, causing sudden volume changes that nucleate slip.

Deep-focus quakes (300-700 km): Electrochemical overpotential at phase-change boundaries induces transformational faulting in the 410-660 km layer.

Consistent depths: Peak seismicity at 10 km, 30 km, and ~600 km corresponds precisely to electroactive horizon boundaries.

The Kola Superdeep Validation

The absence of a chemical Moho at 7 km (instead finding metamorphic transitions) supports Horizon 3 as an electrochemical/metamorphic front rather than primordial crust-mantle boundary.
Predictions and Tests
Observable Correlations

Gravity-telluric lockstep: Minute-scale gravity variations should correlate with telluric current measurements.

Pre-seismic signals: Ionospheric potential drops (ΔΦ₀₋₁) should precede major earthquakes by 1-5 days.

Harmonic distribution: Major seismic events should cluster at Fibonacci time intervals when normalized to local electrochemical conditions.

Planetary scaling: Other differentiated bodies should exhibit similar φ-scaled electroactive layers at depths proportional to their radii.

Laboratory Verification

High-P/T electrochemistry: Applied potentials should catalyze mineral phase transitions at mantle conditions.

Artificial double layers: Large-scale electrochemical interfaces should produce measurable local gravity perturbations.

Gel dynamics: Crustal analog materials should exhibit seismogenic behavior under electrical stimulation.

Unified Circuit Model
Energy Flow

Solar wind/radiation → Ionosphere charging (Layer 0) → Atmospheric potential gradient → Surface coupling (Layer 1) → Telluric currents → Crustal gel discharge (Layer 2) → Mantle phase-change integration (Layer 3) → CMB redox events (Layer 4) → Core return path
System Outputs

Gravitational field: Integrated capacitor voltage across all layers

Magnetic field: Core dynamo modulated by CMB electrochemical events

Tectonic stress: Transmission through charged crustal gel matrix

Volcanism: Mantle plumes initiated at tetrahedral discharge points

Implications
Paradigm Shift

Gravity transforms from fundamental force to emergent property of planetary electrochemistry

Planetary interiors reconceptualized as active electrochemical systems rather than passive thermal engines

Gravity anomalies become diagnostic tools for real-time assessment of planetary electrochemical stress

Planetary Classification

Active, differentiated planets with fluid outer cores and atmospheres should exhibit strong electrochemical gravity components. Airless, geologically inactive bodies should show weaker surface gravity than mass-based models predict.
Conclusion

Earth functions as a φ-scaled, tetrahedrally-organized electrochemical capacitor whose voltage differentials manifest as gravity. Seismicity, volcanism, and tectonic activity represent discharge events within this system. The model explains observed symmetries in gravity anomalies, consistent earthquake depths, and anomalous findings like the Kola Superdeep results through a unified mechanism of planetary-scale electrochemistry.
This is a work in progress so feel free knock out any holes.

Re: Are the planets growing?

by allynh » Wed Nov 19, 2025 1:24 am

Here is an interesting paper talking about Younger Dryas where they blame it all on an exploding "comet".

- Graham Hancock in his Ancient Apocalypse series on Netflix makes the same claim.

The problem I have is the event seems more of a massive plasma strike across the planet, causing the Earth to grow 10% to 15%, killing off the megafauna because gravity increased to our present one gravity.

The evidence of "shocked quartz", Iridium, etc..., found in the deposits indicate EDM and transmutation rather than a series of comet airbursts.

This is essentially the same time as The Green Sahara that I've mentioned before and North Africa rising out of the ocean leaving Atlantis high and dry as I mentioned up thread on page 7. I mentioned in that post as well that the evidence for Ice Ages falls apart rather quickly.

But that's just me. HA!

What Really Killed the Mammoths? New Evidence Points to Exploding Comet 13,000 Years Ago
https://scitechdaily.com/what-really-ki ... years-ago/
November 17, 2025
Comet on Fire Meteor Earth
https://scitechdaily.com/images/Comet-o ... -Earth.jpg
Newly discovered shocked quartz at ancient Clovis sites bolsters evidence that a comet explosion 13,000 years ago unleashed widespread destruction, possibly wiping out Ice Age giants and early North American peoples. Credit: Stock
Evidence from key archaeological sites suggests a major cosmic explosion may have reshaped the climate and ecosystems of the late Pleistocene.

Scientists are expanding the evidence supporting the idea that a fragmented comet exploded over Earth nearly 13,000 years ago. This cosmic event may have played a part in the extinction of mammoths, mastodons, and many other large Ice Age animals, as well as the sudden disappearance of the Clovis culture from North America’s archaeological record.

In a study published in PLOS One, UC Santa Barbara Emeritus Professor of Earth Science James Kennett and his team report the discovery of shocked quartz (sand grains altered by intense heat and pressure) at three key Clovis sites in the United States: Murray Springs in Arizona, Blackwater Draw in New Mexico, and Arlington Canyon in California’s Channel Islands.

“These three sites were classic sites in the discovery and the documentation of the megafaunal extinctions in North America and the disappearance of the Clovis culture,” said Kennett.

Evidence for the Younger Dryas Impact hypothesis

The extinction of large Ice Age animals and the loss of the Clovis technocomplex occurred at the same time as the onset of the Younger Dryas, a sudden cooling period that interrupted the planet’s gradual warming after the Last Glacial Period. This unusual return to near–ice age conditions lasted for roughly a thousand years.

Scientists have suggested several possible causes for this dramatic climate shift. Kennett and his colleagues propose that a fragmented comet exploded in the atmosphere, releasing intense heat and shockwaves across the planet.

“In other words, all hell broke loose,” Kennett said. According to the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis, the explosions were responsible for widespread burning and the resulting smoke and soot, in addition to dust that blocked the sun, leading to an “impact winter.” Rapid melting of the ice sheets could have helped to further cool the impact zones. The shock of impact itself, followed by harsh conditions thereafter, may have contributed to the demise of the megafauna in both North and South America and the disappearance of the Clovis culture, according to the hypothesis.

Three Classic Clovis Archaeological Sites Graphic
https://scitechdaily.com/images/Three-C ... raphic.jpg
The three classic Clovis archaeological sites in the study. Credit: Courtesy image
Accumulating Evidence for an Impact Event

For the past couple of decades, Kennett and fellow proponents of this hypothesis have been gathering evidence that increasingly supports it, including a “black mat” layer in the sediment at many sites across North America and Europe — indicative of widespread burning. Additionally, they have uncovered a growing list of impact proxies, which include unusually high concentrations of rare minerals that are common in comets, such as platinum and iridium, and mineral formations indicative of extremely high temperatures and pressures, such as nanodiamonds and metals and minerals that have melted, cooled, and hardened again, including metallic spherules and meltglass.

Thanks to advances in technology, the team is homing in on another proxy that is considered the crème de la crème of cosmic impact evidence: shocked quartz — grains of sand that exhibit deformations due to extreme heat and temperature. In samples from the three North American archaeological sites — Murray Springs, Blackwater Draw and Arlington Canyon — the researchers identified quartz grains with telltale cracks, some filled with melted silica. They used a variety of techniques, including electron microscopy and cathodoluminescence, to confirm that the quartz grains had been shocked at extremely high temperatures and pressures, far beyond what could have been accomplished by volcanism or ancient human activity.

Airbursts and the Challenge of Craterless Impacts

The presence of shocked quartz is particularly important in the absence of craters — the smoking gun of cosmic impact evidence. Unlike the asteroid that killed off the dinosaurs 65 million years ago and left a crater beneath the Yucatan Peninsula, “touchdown airbursts” — cosmic collisions that occur above the Earth’s surface, such as from this proposed fragmented comet — leave little, if any, evidence on the landscape. Using hydrocode modeling, the team modeled these low-altitude, above-ground explosions and the variety of impacts that could lead to the shock patterns in the quartz grains.

nbs said. While the accepted evidence for cosmic impact leans heavily on the parallel cracks in quartz found at craters, the variety of directions, pressures, and temperatures that emerge around airbursts would lead to variations in the shock patterns in the quartz, he explained. “There are going to be some very highly shocked grains and some that will be low-shocked. That’s what you would expect.”

Added to the other impact proxies found in the same layer of sediment — carbon-rich black mat, nanodiamonds, impact spherules — and found at three key archaeological sites, the discovery of these shocked quartz grains “supports a cosmic impact as a major contributing factor in the megafaunal extinctions and the collapse of the Clovis technocomplex at the Younger Dryas onset,” according to the paper.

Reference: “Shocked quartz at the Younger Dryas onset (12.8 ka) supports cosmic airbursts/impacts contributing to North American megafaunal extinctions and collapse of the Clovis technocomplex” by James P. Kennett, Malcolm A. LeCompte, Christopher R. Moore, Gunther Kletetschka, John R. Johnson, Wendy S. Wolbach, Siddhartha Mitra, Abigail Maiorana-Boutilier, Victor Adedeji, Marc D. Young, Timothy Witwer, Kurt Langworthy, Joshua J. Razink, Valerie Brogden, Brian van Devener, Jesus Paulo Perez, Randy Polson and Allen West, 10 September 2025, PLOS ONE.
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0319840

Never miss a breakthrough: Join the SciTechDaily newsletter.
Follow us on Google, Discover, and News.
The paper is available as pdf.

Shocked quartz at the Younger Dryas onset (12.8 ka)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/artic ... ne.0319840

Re: Are the planets growing?

by allynh » Fri Jul 04, 2025 8:35 pm

The paper they are referencing is interesting, but they work from the premise of tectonic plates or expansion with constant mass.

At least they are trying.

Thanks...

BTW, They mention Thunderbolts, so they may read this.

Everybody wave. HA!

Re: Are the planets growing?

by spark » Fri Jul 04, 2025 4:58 am

Expanding Earth vs Plate Tectonics - Opening of the North Atlantic Ocean 117mya
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiqSbxXgbpw

Re: Are the planets growing?

by Brigit » Thu May 29, 2025 9:34 pm

Very nice to have this on the other topic.

I enjoyed the book review you quoted. It's a good critique about getting caught up into the definition of "consciousness".

One of the other book reviewers said his favorite chapter of the Marcel Kuijsten book is called "Greek Zombies", making a little fun of the idea that "consciousness" is a recent development. That is pretty funny ! 

Thank you allynh.

Re: Are the planets growing?

by allynh » Wed May 28, 2025 3:25 am

Thanks, Brigit.

Here is a list of books that came out of the Jaynes book. I was able to get all but one in ebook. I need to read them again.

- I'll pop the list over on the Jaynes thread as well.

The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B009MBTRHA

Gods, Voices, and the Bicameral Mind: The Theories of Julian Jaynes
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07MKPL1DF

The "Other" Psychology of Julian Jaynes: Ancient Languages, Sacred Visions, and Forgotten Mentalities
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07BFDFBFV

The Julian Jaynes Collection
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07NP5GXH8

I have this in paperback from 2009:

Reflections on the Dawn of Consciousness: Julian Jaynes's Bicameral Mind Theory Revisited
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0979074401

This is the 2nd edition from 2024:

Reflections on the Dawn of Consciousness: Julian Jaynes's Bicameral Mind Theory Revisited
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1737305550

I'll need to get a copy. HA!
About the author

It is unfortunate that so much of Julian Jaynes' work gets caught up in this whole argument over what is and isn't consciousness. I am of the school that had he just said the Dawn of the "Experience of Consciousness" in the title all would have been avoided.

I say unfortunate because it opens the door to a lot of unnecessary, and tedious, arguments over what words mean what. Were humans "conscious" prior to 2,000 BC (or thereabouts) or were they "unconscious?" Is consciousness limited to self-awareness (grounded in an internal experience of an 'I') or is it broader and more encompassing than that? Etc.

Jaynes and his disciples go to great lengths to limit consciousness to a very specific experience of self-awareness, thus they pinpoint a moment in time when we became "conscious". But why? You can agree with this theory and find it very persuasive and factually probable without getting into the whole rigmarole of consciousness. Hegel, for example, using a different route, came to an almost exact position. He just called it the evolution of "spirit" (self=soul=interior life)rather than consciousness.

Of course Jaynes is working from a more naturalistic, neurological understanding of the evolution of the human being than Hegel, which is why, perhaps, he and his disciples put so much emphasis on the question of consciousness. They are tortured to place consciousness within the gradual evolution of our species. The thinking is that as we developed greater and greater language complexity (specifically the use of symbol which "spatialized" the exterior world - or - as I prefer- drew a more pronounced division between internal and external) consciousness evolved. Prior to that moment our minds operated with little distinction between internal and external. Much like the schizophrenic mind, we "heard voices" in times of high stress and regarded them as external. (Schizophrenics and other people who experience auditory hallucinations hear them usually over their left shoulder.) This is all very persuasive and explains the omnipresence of idols and gods. That is, the voices (since they were not seen as internal in source) were attributable to external sources which were then invested with sacred and holy features.

Anyone who reads the Hebrew Bible, or just paid attention in Sunday school, knows that the primary feature of the Judaic religion was it assault on idols and the exaltation of a single off-world God. For Jaynes this destruction of idols was part of the evolving mind. Because we are increasingly becoming "conscious" we therefore no longer hear these voices or identify them as external, but rather now identify them as coming from within our own head. Thus idols begin losing their authority. So religion, consequently, must be reconstituted as an internal experience. Likewise for Hegel this introduction of an off-world God produces an internal relationship with an abstraction (Yahweh), and is indicative of an evolving internal life (which Christianity continues with the idea of sin, shame and forgiveness).

Simple right? So why get into the question of consciousness at all? Why not understand it simply as the increasing awareness of an internal self? The primitive mind, which Jaynes describes, vs the more modern mind which begins around 1200 BC? Why get into the question of consciousness at all? Why not call it "self-consciousness" and leave it at that?

The only reason I can come up with is that the ugly head of scientific dogma wants to make sure we all understand that consciousness is an outgrowth of human evolution. It is this materialistic viewpoint that wants to limit consciousnesses to a specific moment of evolution. But the sad truth is, you can read all these essays and Jaynes' work and substitute words like "self awareness" or "experience of consciousness" for the Jaysian's use of the word "consciousness" and nothing changes. NOTHING.

So why does any of this matter?

Because there are those of us who see the universe as primarily a conscience entity, whereby consciousness is all around us, external and internal and that all processes in nature make manifest consciousness. We, however, as humans have an awareness of consciousness through an awareness of self. This awareness is just a small fraction of the total consciousness, but it gives us access to the greater consciousness, which is evolving and us with it.

If you come from this point of view, nothing in Jaynes' argument is lost. In fact, you stand to gain a lot more from it. Because now you understand that the "bicameral" mind, as he calls it, can be a conscious mind, or a specific experience of consciousness, without a direct experience of an internal self as generating that consciousness or as the loci of that consciousness. And that on some level, this experience is still going on in the human psyche - such that we have access to a more primitive experience of consciousness and therefore on some level a greater, more abstracted psyche.

Isn't that much cooler! Why put the human psyche in a conscious box? It is completely unnecessary and I believe introduces an unfortunate bias into the argument that just shouldn't be there (and trust me, these people spend a lot of time defending it).

Why not just describe the phenomena and leave it at that? You're scientists, after all. Why get into speculation? I admit, my view point is equally speculative, but I don't pretend it isn't! It comes down to definitions and what you ultimately believe is the source of consciousness: Evolution or the Great Eternal Mind in the Sky (I joke, but basically, you get the idea.)

Re: Are the planets growing?

by Brigit » Tue May 27, 2025 5:10 pm

I just came across this comment by allynh --

https://thunderbolts.info/wp/forum3/php ... =974#p9120


Thank you for that description of various works of fiction based on Julian Jaynes book, The Origin of Consciousness and the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. That is crazy. I love it. I hardly ever read fiction and I like how you are able to bring it into the discussions. I am surprised not to have a lot of responses to that post you wrote.

I was still in shock at the time, iirc. I was trying to bring this aspect of planetary cataclysms and brain science together, but I was only able to really focus every few days. Thank you again for that very interesting comment, allynh.

Also, this is a great thread. Very readable and informative.

Re: Are the planets growing?

by allynh » Wed Apr 09, 2025 1:45 am

Forgot to add the link to the Safire video to compare with The Phenomenon clip.

Special Feature: SAFIRE PROJECT 2019 UPDATE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTaXfbvGf8E

Re: Are the planets growing?

by allynh » Wed Apr 02, 2025 4:34 pm

YouTube has been putting a number of fun documentaries into my feed lately. This one is a good summary about UFOs. Near the end there is a segment showing the metal samples that come from UFOs:

The Phenomenon | Full Documentary
https://youtu.be/QyFVqLzGTvY&t=4665

When they mentioned "metal" debris, that fell from UFOs years ago, I always wondered what they meant. They are little pieces that fit into test tubes, not machined parts. As soon as I saw them, and the readings from the sensor I said, "Transmutation" HA!

It is clear that the UFOs were atmospheric plasma events, creating a "Z-pinch" that caused the plasma to Transmute into heavier elements and fall to the ground.

- This is what happened with the Safire Project electrodes.

All the atoms around us are new, made here on Earth, not in some "supernova" far away in space.

They are spending all their time assuming "machined" parts, and it is Transmutation. If they had realized "that" they could move on to the next important step and see what UFOs actually are.

Re: Are the planets growing?

by allynh » Sun Mar 30, 2025 3:29 am

Wow, this video is major.

Stuart Talbott: Planet Formation Is Electromagnetic | Thunderbolts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxdNgmT-jls

The thing that wasn't mentioned, is that new matter is probably being made as the stars are created.

Re: Are the planets growing?

by allynh » Mon Aug 12, 2024 3:03 am

I started reading:

Megalithic Chemistry
https://thedailyplasma.blog/2024/07/28/ ... chemistry/

and almost stopped. Luckily I read the whole thing. The shocking stuff was buried deep in the article, and utterly destroyed me.

Well done.

- If the Moon was in a two-day orbit, what would it look like from Earth.

Here are some visual examples:

If the planets replaced our moon (Realistic)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQRbxjskrPc

The Moon went from a two-day orbit around Earth to what looks like a twenty-nine day orbit, but that does not match reality:

The Moon Does Not Go Around the Earth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUo2tp_yvRY

Here is the Wiki page where it is mentioned:

Path of Earth and Moon around Sun
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_ ... around_Sun

Here is the book on Kindle:

An Elementary Treatise on the Lunar Theory, With a Brief Sketch of the History of the Problem Before Newton
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00N9JPCO8

- How big would the tides be.

- Was the Moon smaller while it was in the two-day orbit.

- How much did it grow as it transitioned to the current size and orbit.

The concept opens up a ton of fun questions. I'm definitely going to use this stuff in my novels.

Re: Are the planets growing?

by allynh » Wed Jul 10, 2024 9:35 pm

As I've said before, the structures show where the hollow part of the Earth is, not sunken fragments of another world.

Anomalies Deep Inside Earth Are Wreckage of Crashed Alien World, Scientists Propose
https://www.vice.com/en/article/epvq9k/ ... ts-propose
Anomalies Deep Inside Earth Are Wreckage of Crashed Alien World, Scientists Propose
Scientists have proposed that the wreckage of a long-lost alien world is buried about 1,800 miles under our feet, reports a new study. This mind-boggling hypothesis suggests that strange anomalies in Earth’s interior may be relics of a world that smashed into our planet some 4.5 billion years ago, and that similar ancient remnants may lurk inside other celestial bodies.

The infant solar system was much wilder and more tumultuous than it is today, with lots of crashes between small embryonic worlds called protoplanets. Scientists have long suspected that an ancient protoplanet known as Theia, which could have been as large as Mars, hurtled into Earth in this period. This catastrophic collision ejected debris from Theia and Earth into space, where it eventually coalesced into the Moon, so the theory goes.

Now, scientists led by Qian Yuan, a postdoctoral scholar in geophysics at the California Institute of Technology, present new evidence that remnants of Theia may have also become lodged deep in the Earth’s mantle, where they have survived to the present day. This hypothesis could explain the curious presence of two massive “blobs” inside Earth known as large low-velocity provinces (LLVPs), which appear denser than the surrounding mantle in seismic observations of our planet’s interior, since seismic waves travel through them at a significantly lower velocity than in surrounding material.

Yuan and his colleagues “show that LLVPs may represent buried relics of Theia mantle material (TMM) that was preserved in proto-Earth’s mantle after the Moon-forming giant impact” and note that “similar mantle heterogeneities caused by impacts may also exist in the interiors of other planetary bodies,” according to a study published on Wednesday in Nature.

“The initial condition of Earth may play a crucial role in Earth's evolution and many uniquenesses,” Yuan told Motherboard in an email. “And that initial condition is widely believed to be set by the Moon-forming impact.”

Yuan first started pondering whether the LLVPs might be remnants of Theia years ago while he was pursuing his PhD at Arizona State University. He developed the concept with his colleagues using geodynamical models, and formally presented it at the 52nd Lunar and Planetary Science Conference in 2021.

Now, Yuan and his team have built on those initial findings by running much more advanced simulations of the giant impact that likely formed the Moon, as well as the long-term fallout of this clash inside the infant Earth. The researchers investigated whether the LLVPs, which are each several hundred miles across, could feasibly be remnants of Theia that became entrapped in our planet as it reeled from the collision 4.5 billion years ago.

“The significant improvements we have this time are from the Moon-forming impact simulations,” explained Yuan, who credited his co-authors Hongping Deng and Jacob Kegerreis for the advanced models.

“Both of their impact simulations show this collision did not melt the whole Earth's mantle, and the lower half of Earth's mantle is mostly solid and it captures an amount of Theia's mantle (~2% of Earth's whole mass ) that is consistent with the Earth's present blobs,” he added.

In other words, the team’s new and improved models support the idea that the LLVPs may be the remains of Theia, which helped to create the Moon when it careened into Earth. In addition, Yuan and his colleagues pointed to evidence that the blobs contain primordial elements that predate the Moon-forming impact event. This hints that the LLVPs must be extremely ancient, a timeline that does not fit as well with explanations that suggest the blobs are masses of subducted oceanic crust, or remnants of Earth’s differentiation phase.

It’s utterly wild to imagine that we are all going about our daily lives while continent-sized splinters of a shattered world lurk beneath our feet, which may even be leaking extraterrestrial materials to surface basalt through plumes in the interior of Earth. But while this hypothesis is highly compelling, it will take much more research and experimentation to bear it out.

To that end, Yuan and his colleagues hope that parts of Theia may be preserved on the surface of the Moon, which is far more accessible than the deep layer of Earth where the LLVPs exist.

“I look forward to seeing future missions on the Moon to bring back its mantle rocks, which are very likely to come from the impactor Theia according to the majority of Moon-forming impact simulations.” Yuan said. “If the lunar mantle rock and LLVP-related basalts share the same chemical signatures, they should both originate from Theia.”

Moreover, the team noted that other planets may also contain the fossils of ancient worlds inside their bellies, given that impacts appear to be very common in many early star systems. NASA’s InSight mission to Mars, which ended last year, has revealed unprecedented details about the red planet’s interior, and future missions could potentially detect the relics of extraterrestrial worlds within other extraterrestrial worlds, like otherworldly nesting dolls.

“I've been talking to people who work on InSight data about the possibility, but since it only has one seismometer, I imagine it will be very very challenging to observe the 3D structures of the blobs if Mars has them,” Yuan concluded. “Most of the InSight work is still working on 1D structures of its interior, but since Mars has been suggested to have had a giant impact to form the crustal dichotomy, it may have related heterogeneities, which needs future more seismometers to test the hypothesis.”

Re: Are the planets growing?

by allynh » Fri Jan 19, 2024 4:42 am

"And in theory, water vapor expelled by the eruptions can be a greenhouse gas."

They still can't accept that the added water vapor is why we had such a warm 2023.

Volcano That Blasted Seawater into the Stratosphere May Have Damaged Ozone Layer
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... one-layer/
The Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha‘apai volcano erupted in January 2022 with the force of an atomic weapon. The disaster has launched dozens of new studies about global warming

The Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha‘apai volcano erupted in January 2022 with the force of an atomic weapon. The disaster has launched dozens of new studies about global warming
https://static.scientificamerican.com/s ... source.jpg

CLIMATEWIRE | Scientists around the world are exploring the climate impacts of what appears to be one of the largest and farthest reaching volcanic eruptions in history. It began rumbling in late December 2021 and culminated in a towering plume rising over two tiny, uninhabited islands in the South Pacific called Hunga Tonga and Hunga Ha'apai.

What made this eruption special was its location and its power — it came from an underwater volcano that exploded with the force of a large nuclear weapon Jan. 13, 2022, and again Jan. 15, 2022. According to a recent report by NOAA, the eruptions launched a record slug of seawater — an estimated 150 million tons of it. Some of it even reached the stratosphere.

The force behind the eruptions, the unusual presence of water in the plume and the plume's continued movement around the globe have caught the attention of researchers worldwide. NOAA scientists say the eruptions have spawned dozens of new studies about climate change.

One question they're trying to answer is whether the chemical mix in the eruptions could inflict more damage to the Earth’s protective ozone layer, an atmospheric shield that blocks the harmful ultraviolet rays of sunlight. For instance, chlorine in the giant plume might react with water and partially degrade the ozone layer. And in theory, water vapor expelled by the eruptions can be a greenhouse gas.

The plume may also help determine whether it’s possible — as some scientists predict — to geoengineer clouds of sulfur dioxide, a gas contained in the plume, that might shade parts of the Earth from global warming. Currently, scientists can only generate a relatively small cloud of sulfur dioxide, but studying the impacts of a much larger cloud may help answer the question of whether the approach can help decrease temperatures by reflecting sunlight back into space.

“This is like a huge validation test of our climate models,” said Karen Rosenlof, a senior scientist at NOAA’s Chemical Sciences Laboratory, speaking broadly about the eruption. She was alerted to the eruption in time to get a collection of U.S. scientists and newly invented portable instruments to a French island called Reunion in the Indian Ocean.

Reunion is 8,000 miles to the west of the eruptions, but as she explained in an interview, the team arrived ready to launch weather balloons carrying instruments that helped them measure the contents of the unusual plume as it drifted overhead — pushed westward by winds from Hunga Tonga.

The questions raised by the eruption “have brought together a lot of people world-wide to try and study and analyze all of this,” Rosenlof said.

One study she co-authored with a team of scientists showed that the plume developed three times faster than under normal stratospheric conditions and carried “an unexpected abundance of large particles” — but not as much sulfur as expected. The sulfur, even at lower levels, still can help inform geoengineering research because of the size of the plume.

Another study she helped write concluded that the “plume created ideal conditions for swift ozone depletion,” which may help researchers learn more about gaps in the ozone layer and how they developed, such as one scientists have found over the South Pole.

More studies are coming, including one mandated by the Montreal Protocol that's due in 2026. The international agreement calls for periodic testing of emissions that can cause harm in the stratosphere, and it could pick up more data from the eruptions.

According to NASA, Hunga Tonga was the largest underwater explosion ever recorded, and the blast likely will not be repeated anytime soon, in large part because the volcano was under 490 feet of water. If it were shallower, it would have spread less water. If it were deeper, “the immense pressures in the ocean’s depths could have muted the eruption.”

Reprinted from E&E News with permission from POLITICO, LLC. Copyright 2023. E&E News provides essential news for energy and environment professionals.

Re: Are the planets growing?

by Open Mind » Mon Mar 13, 2023 5:00 pm

JoeB wrote: Sun Feb 26, 2023 5:04 pm
Open Mind wrote: Fri Aug 07, 2020 3:49 pm
Hollow earth is a necessary conclusion without any explanation for where the mass comes from.
Why would you purposely make a false conclusion, or make a guess because you didn't have the explanation?

What you said is a false statement... the Big Bang Miracle has a worse problem - there is no possible cause or explanation. And something with no cause means it takes zero energy to happen, so what happened once should be happening all the time. It is just a miracle. You could just as well use the same logic as the big bang miracle proponents, and say that there are little big bangs happening inside planets. Your reasoning is flawed.

:lol: Why are you allowed to have miracles in your theories but I'm not? :lol:

Even if it were correct, I have seen many theories about mass creation. Here goes one now:

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... ding_Earth

So pick one, or don't. I think it's flawed to pick something like "hollow earth" or any choice as to what is causing the matter creation, or any other choice in life, just because you have to choose something, because it is just choosing to believe things while having no idea whether they are true or not. That is called faith and religion. It defies all logic.

The true answer is that you don't know.
I had to search way back to find my post. And I haven't re read everything I was following to understand why I made that response. But my assumption was it was a discussion about ways to explain an absence for a mechanism of mass increase. So I'm guessing people were talking about earth expansion being a model that has lead to the coining of the term "Balloon Earth". Meaning that the earth does expand, but without mass increase, its simply blowing up like a balloon, and the mass remains unaffected.

I'm not against a hollow earth idea, (After all, the moon did ring), but I'm not a fan of a fixed mass earth expanding the crustal layer to what I guess becomes a thinner and thinner crustal layer. I can't disprove that idea, obviously, but if I apply Occam's Razor to it, it feels weak. Which is why I was offering the recent findings by Safire of the transmutation mechanism, to throw into the mixture, so we don't HAVE to imagine a mechanism that seems to suffer from a limited time frame before it 'pops'. Doesn't it feel like a better mechanism, if we can imagine an increasing mass that follows and therefore maintains the integrity of the planets crust?

Re: Are the planets growing?

by JoeB » Sun Feb 26, 2023 5:04 pm

Open Mind wrote: Fri Aug 07, 2020 3:49 pm
Hollow earth is a necessary conclusion without any explanation for where the mass comes from.
Why would you purposely make a false conclusion, or make a guess because you didn't have the explanation?

What you said is a false statement... the Big Bang Miracle has a worse problem - there is no possible cause or explanation. And something with no cause means it takes zero energy to happen, so what happened once should be happening all the time. It is just a miracle. You could just as well use the same logic as the big bang miracle proponents, and say that there are little big bangs happening inside planets. Your reasoning is flawed.

:lol: Why are you allowed to have miracles in your theories but I'm not? :lol:

Even if it were correct, I have seen many theories about mass creation. Here goes one now:

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... ding_Earth

So pick one, or don't. I think it's flawed to pick something like "hollow earth" or any choice as to what is causing the matter creation, or any other choice in life, just because you have to choose something, because it is just choosing to believe things while having no idea whether they are true or not. That is called faith and religion. It defies all logic.

The true answer is that you don't know.

Top