Friday, December 12, 2008

Why Doesn't The Earth Crash Into The Sun?

According to Newton and Einstein, the sun and Earth are attracted to eachother gravitationally.

So why haven't they crashed into eachother?

According to Newton's so-called "theory" of gravity: God.

The Earth is alleged to have formed 4.5-4.6 billion years ago and according to Newton and gravity, God in His infinite wisdom made the Earth with the exact perfect velocity at the time of creation so as not to exceed the escape velocity.

In Principles of Mathematics Having Nothing To Do With Physics Newton writes:

"Every body perserveres in it's state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right line [Einstein doesn't believe in right lines so according to Relativity that's impossible], unless it is compelled to change that state by forces [electromagnetic perhaps?] impressed thereon."

However, for the past 4.5 billion years the Earth has been experiencing forces and friction via cosmic rays and Birkeland currents so the Earth should have either (a) been accelerated past escape velocity into the depths of space or (b) slowed sufficiently below orbital velocity, thus crashing into the sun.

In the General Scholium, Newton writes the following:

"...lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other, he [God] hath placed those systems at immense distances from one another."

Fixed stars? Is this guy serious? The Arp 147 galaxy pair crashing into eachother don't look too distant from one another or fixed to me.


Quantum_Flux said...

Areal Velocity .... just add mass to that psuedovecter (a 3d vector which represents angular rates about that axis) and you've got your angular momentum

OilIsMastery said...

So Birkeland currents and cosmic rays do not create any force or friction? How is that possible?

Quantum_Flux said...

Nice try. Keplar noted that angular momentum and therefore area-el velocity (m^2/sec) sweeped out by that orbit is conserved for all orbits about a common center of rotation (mass). This is why people can predict where planetary orbits will be next. The friction exerted on a planet in orbit is minimal to neglidgeable compared to the orbital energy (kinetic plus potential) relative to a spot, but there is such a thing as orbital decay rates due to friction....such as what occurs in aerobraking. Aerobraking also explains why most orbits are more circular than they are elliptical.

Quantum_Flux said...

I had to change my units there, Areal Velocity is (m^2/sec)...

Birkeland Currents must have some effect on the orbits, but I'm not sure what effect it would have per say. The effect is not something that is not taught in astronomy, I'm pretty sure givent that Birkeland Currents are of recent confirmation, but the effect could very well add or subtract from the angular momentum of planets depending on the situation.

OilIsMastery said...

"Birkeland Currents must have some effect on the orbits, but I'm not sure what effect it would have per say."

How about friction?

Quantum_Flux said...

How much friction and what parts of the orbital engine are experiencing this friction? Or, are the plantets being repelled or attracted any? Is there an oscillating effect of attraction and repulsion? I'll chew on that for a while.

OilIsMastery said...

The sun and moon are electromagnets, charged bodies, so the reason why they don't crash into eachother is electromagnetic repulsion.

Quantum_Flux said...

Why would god crash 2 perfectly designed galaxies together? You're listening or reading too much Kant Philosophy and you're brain cells are short circuiting and fizzling from it. Abandon reason at your own peril, don't come crying to me when you jump off a cliff, go into gravitational temporary orbit, and then smack into the ground.

Anaconda said...


It has occured to me that I rarely ask for your opinion on the quality of my presentations. That is a mistake. As good faith commenter with a reasonable scepticism perspective (a proper approach to scientific questions) your evaluation and analysis is valuble.

I would be very much appreciative if you would review my comments on the Oil Is Mastery post: Oil Seeps Now Monitored By Satellite, December 8, 2008, and offer a few words of analysis and critque.

Anaconda said...


OilIsMastery hinted at this idea in the Oil Is Mastery post: Black Hole Imagined At The Center of the Galaxy, December 10, 2008

When OilIsMastery presented this quote: "An atom differs from the solar system by the fact that it is not gravitation that makes the electrons go round the nucleus, but electricity." -- Bertrand Russell, physicst, 1924

I expanded on OilIsMastery's original idea further after he planted the seed.


OilIsMastery: Excellent quote:

"An atom differs from the solar system by the fact that it is not gravitation that makes the electrons go round the nucleus, but electricity." -- Bertrand Russell, physicst, 1924

But what if it isn't gravity that makes the planets go around the Sun; What if it's electricity that makes the planets go round the Sun?

What if the scale independence of "Electro-phenomeonon" is beyond our wildest dreams, and in fact electrons spin around the nucleus the same way planets spin (rotate) around the Sun; and what if electrons spin on their axis the same way planets rotate on their axis (the days and nights of Earth).

Maybe, by understanding how planets behave in reaction to injections of energy, as to their orbits and spins [rotations]), so too, we will understand how electrons orbit around the nucleous and spin on their own axis and how that is effected by injections of energy?

Is it worth thinking about?"

Quantum_Flux, it seems the question is still germane.

Does electromagnetism's known scale independence up to the 18th magnitude provide reason to discuss this provocative thesis presented by OilIsMastery: That electromagnetism not only powers and controls the spin/rotation of electrons, but also the planets' orbit and rotation?

Is it relevant that electromagnetism is 10^39 more powerful than gravity?

Is it relevant that astrophysicists' main objection that electromagneticism's greater strength than gravity is limited to atomic scale distances is not substantiated by any empirical observations and measurements, while Burkeland currents have been proven to stretch from the Sun to the Earth?

And that charged particles, ions, have been identified in interstellar medium in contradiction to astrophysicist's objection that you can't have charge seperation in space?

The above series of questions was designed to crystallize this question:

Since the electromagnetic power is so much greater than gravity and is scale independent, doesn't it follow to reason that the electromagnetic relationships of charged bodies like the Sun and the Earth are more important than the gravitational relationships?

And while gravity is assumed for "just cause" to be the animating force behind Earth's orbit around the Sun, could it be possible that has been an unwarranted assumption?

Or at the very least, shouldn't science exclude the possibility that electromagnetism is the dominant force in determining Earth's orbit around the Sun?

Can either or both the gravity hypothesis and the electromagnetic hypothesis be falsified by scientific observation and measurement?

How would we disprove either of these ideas?

Quantum_Flux said...

(1) There does not need to be any repulsive forces to keep the planets from crashing into the sun, gravitation is balanced by the centripetal force. Imagine twirling a mass on a string, the tension force on the string remains constant. Spin that string faster and the centrifugal force on that string increases, but the string length remains the same (but do it with a stretching spring instead of a string so the radius changes with tangential velocity).

F= G*Me*Ms/r^2 = Me*V^2/r

Quantum_Flux said...

I don't know enough about the FTE's to say very much. There's a lot to learn about these events:

How often do they occur between all the planets and the sun?

Have FTE's ever been observed changing the orbital path of asteroids?

Does charge go both ways like one would expect from lightning?


Louis Hissink said...

Consider the possibility that gravity is an electrical phenomenon.

Assume 2 spheres , say 10 cm diameter, one which is made of lead, the other of aluminum. Perform Galileo's test. Both reach the ground at the same time when dropped.

Explanation 1 - Newton. no need to detail this.

Explanation 2 - Electrical.

Look at both spheres atomically - while having the same physical volume, the lead one has a higher number of protons than the aluminum sphere, hence its greater mass.

But electrically we are dealing with protons, so whether the lead sphere has more protons per unit volume than the aluminum one is neither here not there since ll protons will "gravitationally" drop at the same rate.

Think about it.

Louis Hissink said...


The centripetal force analogy is wrong - no planet is connected by a string to its center of rotation.

Louis Hissink said...

The solar system dynamics can be explained by the homopolar motor (Faraday) mechanism.

Tony Peratt advised me to consider electric currents NOT coming from the Sun, by the way, as part of the Earth EM system.

Quantum_Flux said...

You're forgetting about neutrons though. A helium atom is 4x the mass of a hydrogen atom even though it only has 2x the protons. Why the heck are you guys questioning something that works? The periodic table works, has been used for years based on the basic fundamental principles of mass and charge, I don't think there is any need to redefine mass at all. Furthermore, Newton's and Keplars observations of gravitation work perfectly as a predictive model for the planets in our solar system, no need to question the solid fundamentals that already have been proved many times over for 400 years on the local level.

If charge was responsible for what Newton was detecting with his mass experiments with balls and inclined planes and torsion springs, then no two mass experiments would be consistant. Apples and oranges buddy, satellites do not orbit due to electricity.

Quantum_Flux said...

How can you guys be so ignorant of basic mechanical physics, the most rigorously tested science there is.

Anaconda said...


Quantum_Flux asks: "Why the heck are you guys questioning something that works?"

Science has been on a Quest for a unified theory for over a century. Albert Einstein searched for a "Unified theory". It's the holy grail of physics and to a lesser degree chemistry.

In fact, the super collider is a grand experimental apparatus to to find a unified theory that explains all the forces.

And if electromagnetism is the most powerful force doesn't it stand to reason that the other forces are simply manifestations or derivatives of electromagnetism, Science doesn't understand yet.

Your question is almost like saying, "Why try and understand the forces of the Universe, we'll never get out to the far-reaches of the Universe anyhow, so what does it matter?"

Of course, you would never ask the above question, but do you see the similarities?

But there are practicle reasons, too. I'm convinced that if Man understands the energy relationships that power the Universe, Man can tap into that power system with fantastic benefits to Mankind, here, on Earth. Nikola Tesla was on the right track.

Quantum_Flux, isn't your study of voltaic cells an effort in that direction?

But light, whether you like it or not, is a derivative energy emission. Wouldn't you want to be able to tap into the originating and primal power source?

Quantum_Flux states: "How can you guys be so ignorant of basic mechanical physics, the most rigorously tested science there is."

Why do you, Quantum_Flux, consider questioning basic conceptions in consensus science, a sign of being "ignorant"?

That assumption isn't too far removed from saying, "How can you guys be so ignorant of basic geography, everybody knows the world is flat, and it works just fine in locating different localities," in the 13th century.

I don't think you mean that. What I think makes you uncomfortable is the idea, which you repeatedly have expressed or implied, that to disprove scientific consensus is counter-productive and that "scientienfic authority" should not be readily challenged.

But, of course, that assumption has been repeatedly proved wrong.

Appearances and reality are not always the same thing. The challenge for science is to dig below surface appearances and get to the "thing, itself." I have my differences with OilIsMastery about what Kant's significance is, but certainly the idea there is a duality of experience and reality is an important idea when grappling with questions of science.

Specific objections are generally better that broad questions challenging the effort.

Those broad complaints sound too much like, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."

Specific objections put scientists to "brass tacks" and sharpen both the questioners reason for doubt and the respondents quest for understanding.

That is the absolutely necessary role of the good faith reasonable sceptic.

Quantum_Flux said...

You don't believe in nuclear binding forces? Nuclear binding forces are far more powerful than electrical forces.

Anaconda said...


Quantum_Flux asks: "You don't believe in nuclear binding forces?" Then Quantum_Flux states: "Nuclear binding forces are far more powerful than electrical forces."

I haven't addressed nuclear binding forces, but who's to say what the underlying force is of nuclear binding. Isn't that another question which the super collider is designed to answer?

I guess it depends on how one reacts to the statement: "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."

Isn't it the job of science to, "pull the curtain back?"

Anaconda said...

Louis Hissink:

Louis, you state, "Tony Peratt advised me to consider electric currents NOT coming from the Sun, by the way, as part of the Earth EM system."

That is a significant advisory, both because of the source, Dr. Peratt, the most recognized plasma physicist at Los Alamos Laboratory and the advisory itself.

Please, if you could, "flesh out" what Dr. Peratt means. I take it to mean that there are sources of electric currents for the Earth electromagnetic system that don't come from the Sun. Is that the idea? And, if so, where do these currents come from (I have my ideas, but I'd like to hear it from you)?

Quantum_Flux said...

So then, how do you know that it isn't the nuclear binding force that keeps the planets from going in a straight line?

Anaconda said...


Quantum_flux states: "So then, how do you know that it isn't the nuclear binding force that keeps the planets from going in a straight line?"

That is a non-sensical rejoinder to my response. I stated, "I haven't addressed nuclear binding forces, but who's to say what the underlying force is of nuclear binding."

Science doesn't know WHAT are nuclear binding forces. It could be easily that nuclear binding forces are electromagnetic forces that science doesn't fully understand.

Of course, nuclear binding forces could be something else, but your question isn't designed to shed light, only doubt, which is okay if done for a reasonable good faith purpose.

At this point, we know electrons orbit the nucleus and spin on their axis because of electromagntic forces. Is it reasonable to propose that nuclear binding forces in the nucleus itself, are also based on electromagnetic force?

Quantum_Flux said...

How do you know that electrons aren't resonating waves? How do you know electrons "orbit" the atom at all?

Anaconda said...


I don't know, but at this point, the currrent model seems not to have an alternative theory to it (that I know of).

Or would you care to provide an alternative hypothesis for what electrons are and how they behave?

Quantum_Flux, I encourage you to spend some time reading Picture of the Day subject archive. pick out a subject you have an interest in and read it and see what the Electric Universe perspective is on the subject.

You might be surprised, you might not, you may agree it makes sense, you might not.

I'm convinced by the theory, but then I didn't come into astronomy with strong preconceived opionions.

I had an open-mind, and the observations and measurements make more sense to me from the Electric Universe perspective.

You may feel different, of course, but if you do feel different, you have to ask yourself, "why don't I believe Electric Universe theory and what do I actually believe.

That's a good exercise for anybody interested in science.

OilIsMastery said...


Great questions! I have no idea but here is what the big boys thought.

"How do you know that electrons aren't resonating waves?"

Heisenberg's comment on wave mechanics was: "The more I think about the physical portion of Schrödinger's theory, the more repulsive I find it. [...] What Schrödinger writes about the visualisability of his theory 'is probably not quite right,' in other words it's crap."

"How do you know electrons 'orbit' the atom at all?"

I don't and neither did Heisenberg until the devil Einstein poisoned and infected his brain with lunacy:

In April, Heisenberg gave a two-hour lecture on his matrix mechanics before von Laue's famous physics colloquium at the University of Berlin. In the audience, with a whole group of potentates, was Einstein. It was their second meeting. Einstein, interested and no doubt disturbed by the lecture, asked Heisenberg to walk home with him--there is that walk again--and thus ensued a remarkable discussion, which Heisenberg later reconstructed and reported in many places, from 1969 on.

At that encounter, Heisenberg once more tried to draw attention to having not dealt with unobservable electron orbits inside atoms, but with observable radiation. He reports having said to Einstein: "Since it is acceptable to allow into a theory only directly observable magnitudes, I thought it more natural to restrict myself to these, bringing them in, as it were, as representatives of electron orbits." To this Einstein is said to have responded, "But you don't seriously believe that only observable magnitudes must go into a physical theory?" Heisenberg goes on, "In astonishment, I said: I thought that it was exactly you who had made this thought the foundation of your relativity theory....Einstein replied: Perhaps I used this sort of philosophy; but it is nevertheless nonsense (Unsinn)." And then came Einstein's famous sentence: "Only the theory decides what one can observe."

Anaconda said...



The general public thinks that a situation similar to Galileo could never happen, today. After all, we have an open inquiry in the science pursuits don't we?


The story of Halton Arp, stands athwart what the public believes and the scientific community wants to believe about itself.

Halton Arp is a respected astrophysicist, but when he started challenging the "accepted status quo", and backed his opinions with observations and measurements, the astro-observatory community (the leading lights) took away his telescope time in the United States. Arp was forced to go to Germany (irony?) to continue his observations at the Max Plank Observatory.

Don't believe me. It's absolutely true.

Read this article, Halton Arp: A Modern Day Galileo, November 2, 2005 (

It makes for sobering reading if you believed like me -- there is no modern day "court of Inquisition" on scientific questions.

But if you can't get observatory time because of your scientfic research and opinions, what do you call that besides academic and professional censorship.

Quantum_Flux, that story should make you ponder...

Louis Hissink said...


I'll try to answer your question.

The issue of which and what electric currents were entering the earth came from an unexpected line of inquiry I was working on - figuring out what caused the slight variations in the Earth's rotation which seemed to be linked to sunspot activity.

The logical procedure would be to see if a direct coupling to the earth from the sun was the driving mechanism for the earth's rotation, and in passing mentioned it to Dr Peratt during another issue (age dating or something from memory).

His answer was for me to "think bigger", and that stopped in my tracks for a while.

Then the penny dropped - going from the model of a spiral galaxy, and how it can be explained in terms of the Maxwell and Lorentz equations in the PIC modelling which Peratt does, I suddenly realised that we should not consider the earth as an isolated, electrically conductive sphere in the plasma of space, with a unique connection to the sun, but as part of a larger EM system that incorporates the whole solar system as an interconnected EM Faraday motor.

The variations in the earth's rotation, while linked to the sunspots, isn't due to anything the sun does, but that an underlying electrical system is affecting both the sun and earth simultaneously, and the other planets as well.

This is what I think he meant with the "think bigger" advice.

One of the problems with this science is that Dr Peratt's expertise goes from 1000km from the earth and beyond, while my interest is within the 1000km to the earth itself. However the same physics applies, (which reminds me I have to continue reading his Physics of the Plasma universe Text), but I need to get back to speed on this area since I never used the electrical theory since graduation.

In summary think of the solar system as a large Faraday motor, in which there are cascading electrical currents inducing smaller ones right down to the micro.

This is my take on it for the present.

Oh, my original issue was how to work out how the earth changed it's rotation and celestial orientation - was the earth always at 23.5 degrees to the ecliptic ? Has the earth tippe toppe like careened to new axes of spin, putting continents how at polar areas into the equatorial ones?

This is an extremely important issue because if plate tectonics is dead and buried, then continental drift can no longer be used to explain the occurrence of glacial deposits in equatorial regions.

Expanding earth theory also assumes an earth forever fixed in spatial orientation but having expanded over time.

Oh and while it is fresh in my mind, colliding galaxies as observed, cannot be derived from any Big Bang mechanism or expanding universe mechanism.


Anaconda said...


"Remember, a hypothesis can end up as a 'square peg, trying to fit in a round hole.'

Nature's relationships and "mechanics" are like a lock already made and theories are like a key. But man didn't make the lock and many times can't see inside the lock to make the key.

Therefore, the theory has to be right before the key will turn the lock. And there can be many "keys on the ring", but only one key that turns the lock." -- Anaconda, scientific observer, 2008

And the more universal the lock, the more exact the key (theory) must be in order to turn the lock.

"And then came Einstein's famous sentence: 'Only the theory decides what one can observe.'"

Oh my! That's definitely a statement from a man who only conducted "thought experiments".

Seriously, if only the theory decides what one can observe, then there are no limits to what one can make mathematical equations predict.

Which brings up another point: Quantum Mechanics says that something can be in more than one place at the same time. Hard to believe, but that's what the theory says.

Well, somebody took the theory to heart and came up with Ph.D. thesis stating there was a parallel universe. True, Princeton turned it down -- his point was simply that Quantum Mechanics theory said so, so it must be true, even if there wasn't one scrap of evidence supporting it.

That's called theory divorced from reality.

Apparently, Einstein believed that was okay, too (in his later years).

Well, it's not okay. The empirical scientfic method dictates that theory must be derived from observation and measurement, not the other way round.

This is the problem I've tried to convey to you before.

And Kant was right there is a seperation, a duality between experience and the thing, itself.

Man must remember that duality or the theory becomes the thing, itself, regardless of reality.

That's a wrong path.

Quantum_Flux said...

A mathematical relation can have many interpretations. I think nature plays dice, there does not need to be 6 different outcomes merely because there are 6 different possible outcomes, rather if you roll the dice 600 times, the dice is most probable to come up each number 1/6 of the time and to deviate from those statistics by a few standard deviations.

I have mistakenly made the interpretation of the multiverse a few times before just because it is a fanciful theory and because I had a physics teacher who claimed that to be the truth. However, I do contest that a Multiverse would be a severe violation of conservation of energy. However, what does one do when interpreting the possibility of time travel, say for a partical falling into a black hole should the Hadron Collider show that existance? Would black holes allow for the creation of energy and therefore perpetual motion or multiple universes? (I've got my doubts)

Well good point though, in the midst of adding up all those probability amplitudes, it is important to keep in mind that the wave particle is only in 1 location but that there exists merely probability of it being within a certain region or having a certain momentum.

Anaconda said...


141 years from the birth, December 13, 1867 of the pioneer who gave his name to Birkeland currents.

Kristian Birkeland's famous terrela experiments have stood the test of time. In fact, Birkeland's experiments look more prophetic as time wears on.

The man had a grasp of the mechanics of the world early in the 20th century.

The 21st century will see Mankind tap into the energy that Kristian Birkeland revealed for humanity.

Thank you Norway!

Anaconda said...

Louis Hissink:

Louis, you stated: "[M]y original issue was how to work out how the earth changed it's rotation and celestial orientation - was the earth always at 23.5 degrees to the ecliptic ? Has the earth tippe toppe like careened to new axes of spin, putting continents how at polar areas into the equatorial ones?

This is an extremely important issue because if plate tectonics is dead and buried, then continental drift can no longer be used to explain the occurrence of glacial deposits in equatorial regions.

Expanding earth theory also assumes an earth forever fixed in spatial orientation but having expanded over time."

It's true Expanding Earth theorists haven't addressed the idea of rotation and celestial orientation. Louis, you bring up a good point, "[How to] explain the occurrence of glacial deposits in equatorial regions."

But, just because leading theorists haven't addressed a particular question doesn't mean one theory is incompatible with another theory.

Take your example: ""[How to] explain the occurrence of glacial deposits in equatorial regions."

There are several possibilites which explain those glacial deposits: In Electric Universe theory, the entire Sun - Earth solar system hit a "drop" in electric currents so that the entire Earth became cold, an all incompassing "world ice age."

Or, Earth was subjected to an Electric Universe cataclysm of "worlds colliding," electrically "touching" and discharging, changing the Earth's angle towards the Sun, as previously theorized.

But nether of these postulated events preclude the Expanding Earth theory. The two theories remain compatible.

Remember, the temptation is twofold, when advocating for an unconventional theory: Dismisss other unconventional theories (one "unconventional" theory is enough) and "appropriate" anomalous scientific evidence that may be a better fit in the other unconventional theory.

The temptation is understandable, but the scientific evidence should dictate, not human proclivities.

Louis Hissink said...


Good points - Thornhill and I at least agree on the lack of a viable phhysical mechanism for earth expansion.

My own position, at present, is that the earth may have expanded in the past due to globally pervasive thermal stresses (from what ever cause) that are now absent, and that it is now cooling (based on Anfiloff's work on earthquakes).

One area of contention is the expander's reliance on the creation of mass to power the expansion.

Mass cannot be created - it is the force acting on a lump of matter. Matter creation is totally different and is essentially creatio ex nihilo - impermissable in science.

As Thornhill put forward the idea that the earth's topography or surface morphology, is the result of electrical discharges, machining the surface as is inferred from the study of Mars, for example.

I countered this by pointing out the continental "fit" used by the expanders and PT camp. To machine such a structure might only possible if it cut the initial shape, and then by inputting energy into the earth, caused partial melting of the upper mantle and thus the production of magma which is less dense than its parents, and thus of a larger volume, with the amount of matter remaining constant.

So I view earth expansion as a volumetric change from magma production and eruption of less dense volcanic and igneous rocks.

Earth expanders are going to have a problem if the ocean floors are underlain by granitic rocks, which is starting to look like it.

This is my current working hypothesis, vague as it is.

I think the earth has expanded, but may not be expanding at present, since Anfiloff's excellent work has to be explained.

And in order to do that I have thrown away the standard geological timescale based on radiometrics. (we have no idea how old things are, only that we can rank things in order of relative age.

No data--> precambrian --> present--> future (No Data).

Anaconda said...

Louis Hissink:

Differences of opinion in science are healthy, in fact, they spur re-examination of assumed facts and of ways of viewing incontrovertible facts and their relationship with each other.

So, with that, I must agree to disagree with you and Dr. Thornhill in regards to your conclusions about Expanding Earth theory.

I will not list my reasons, here again, and do not expect you to list your reasons.

I simply point to my hypothesis and note another Science@NASA, Solar Flare Surprise, December 15, 2008, news release that adds to the scientific evidence supporting my hypothesis, along with the other Science@NASA, Magnetic Portals Connect Sun and Earth, October 30, 2008, news release already cited and discussed.

Of course, Dr. Thornhill is bound to Electric Universe theory -- it's his life's work. I understand his position.

But his position no matter how eminent in plasma physics (most eminent) does nothing to close my eyes to the body of scientific evidence supporting Expanding Earth theory even if the "mechansim" is shrouded in mystery.

Remember, the larger (Universal) electric circuit's causation is also shrouded in mystery and that does not stop Dr. Thornhill, you, or me from being convinced of Electric Universe theory.

I'd be happy to study Anfiloff's observations and measurements because at this juncture I see no scientific evidence to suggest the Earth has shrunk -- just the opposite, in fact.

Dr. Thornhill's contention that the ocean basins are all due to electric discharge machining seems to stretch the theory too much. As does the idea that Earth is an "invader" planet swept into this solar system "under the wing" of a brown dwarf.

Being absolutely objective for any one man is a most impossible task, which is why the collective reason of Man is brought to bear on most issues of ambiguity in the scientific realm, even if that process, itself, is fraught with its own peril.

Pick your poison and balance on razor's edge.

The Greeks adage is sound: "Nothing to excess."

Tom said...

Matter has to come from somewhere. The existence of the universe proves that matter can at least be created.

I don't know if OIM deliberately says some things that are obviously off the wall to provoke so-called mainstream scientists, but I can't blame him. Like Jeff Schmidt I think that many of them, if not most or all, are insufferable pricks. Insufferable pricks have next to zero credibility with me. This makes a difference because when you are dealing with a person who is like that, he will be going along explaining something with legitimate science, then you run into something that makes your head spin, it is so obviously wrong. When you argue the point they inflict every kind of pain that they can.

Newtonian gravity can be valid and planetary orbits can still be influenced by electrostatic fields, especially when those fields act on congealing plasma. A long time ago I got the idea that maybe Venus has the least eccentricity in its orbit because it's the newest and has had less time to be perturbed.

Tom said...

It is also credible to me that matter can migrate from the interior of the Earth to the surface. We actually watch it happening on television, and some lucky people see it in person.

Under mainstream gravitational theory the interior of the Earth is at null gravity because the mass overhead cancels it out. We may not actually know all of the properties of gravity and we may not be all that sophisticated at calculating gravitational pull using the allegedly normal rules.