September 15th 2017
A moment of silence please. Cassini was sacrificed today, it was plunged into Saturn to protect Titan & Enceladus from potential contamination. Such a sad moment, Cassini revealed such amazing scientific knowledge previously unknown. I'm tempted to dedicate a page to this amazing spacecraft and its discoveries. It was designed to orbit Saturn for 4 years but lasted 13 it took over a hundred thousand images and could have lasted longer but as a result of it discovering the potential for life on the small moon Enceladus, it couldn't be allowed to potentially contaminate it so Cassini was plunged to her death.
|
OK, on with the show.
Statistics don't lie and data now shows how people who golf are in danger of dying because of this deadly sport. Yes our planet is the only one where golf is played and we have more deaths than all the other planets combined. So obviously golf is a deadly sport. Pretty stupid huh! Well that's just how dumb some data can be and if you don't know any better then you could easily be led to believe errant or even intentionally altered data. For thirty years it has been widely accepted as fact that a Mars sized planet collided with Earth creating our moon but finally some scientists have looked more closely at the false data that supposedly supports this assertion and have drawn a radically new conclusion which more closely matches what the data suggests. |
Theia is a theoretical Mars sized object that was supposed to have collided with Earth in turn creating our Moon. Robin Canup expanded on the Theia impact model by creating a model that appeared to work for two planets nearly identical in size. Her model basically increased the size of Theia and reduced the size of the Earth. They both impact and basically annihilate each other then the Earth and Moon coalesce out of the molten debris.
This article from space.com errantly presents a video in support of the Thiea impact model.
This article from space.com errantly presents a video in support of the Thiea impact model.
|
Videos like this one are presented in a very convincing manner. Four potential scenarios are used to explain the formation of our Moon.
The impact theory is expressed as the most viable option but then Oxygen isotopes seem to disprove this option but later supports it as technology gets better. Oxygen isotopes are then supposed to prove our Moon was impacted by a Mars sized or larger impactor. |
|
Only problem with the assumptions in the above video is that nobody considered a fifth option (multiple smaller impacts)
|
|
This video is in the same article with some commonly accepted but now considered incorrect assumptions.
Assumptions
This is a primary problem for the large body impact theory. If the entire Earth's surface was turned to melted hot rock then all the water (volatile surface material) must have been evaporated away. |
With the Earth and Moon theoretically formed from a molten liquid ball of boiling rock all traces of water are eliminated so the problem becomes how did all this water get here, enter the late heavy bombardment (LHB) theory.
There are now three new studies which indicate
These three studies completely rearrange the previous concepts of how our Earth and Moon formed.
There are now three new studies which indicate
- Our Moon was not formed from one Mars sized or larger impactor but rather a series of smaller impacts.
- Our planet Earth was primarily covered in water with a few minor islands poking up very early in Earth's formation, 0.5 to 1.4 billion years earlier than the late heavy bombardment (LHB).
- Our Moon has lots of water ice below the surface indicating the moon did not form from vaporized molten rock material in a catastrophic Mars type impact rather it coalesced from frozen rocky ice material. Even without an atmosphere our moon has abundances of water ice below the surface.
These three studies completely rearrange the previous concepts of how our Earth and Moon formed.
|
Sufferin' Succotash! Theoretical Theia gets Thrashed
The Earth formed 4.57 billion years ago indicated by old rock and meteorite analysis. This new study indicates our Moon developed in the first 60 million years of the solar system's formation 4.51 bya and the Moon formed from multiple smaller sized impacts not one big impact. Quote from above study It is difficult to reconcile giant-impact models with the compositional similarity of the Earth and Moon without violating angular momentum constraints... |
|
Here we present numerical simulations suggesting that the Moon could instead be the product of a succession of a variety of smaller collisions.
Robin Canup's Moon creation model >>>>>>>> Robin Canup was the one scientist able to create a working model of Charon colliding with Pluto. Other scientists attempted this feat but only Robin was able to make it happen. While Robin may not have been the originator of the Theia impact theory, her model suggests the two impacting bodies were similarly sized planets and she was able to successfully create a functional model supporting this theory. |
|
One thing to note, however, in Robin's collision animation is that no moon actually ever coalesces from the debris which is a bit peculiar as this animation is supposed to show the formation of the Earth and Moon from a collision between two similarly sized planets, that is, after all, the model's purpose yet it does not show a moon forming from the impact, perhaps because it violates angular momentum constraints.
|
|
It is now known that the large body impact model violates angular momentum constraints. That's a nice (scientific) way of saying the large body impact model's data does not conform to what is physically possible in order to create the animated cartoons supporting the Theia Moon creation model. This makes me question the reliability of Robin's Pluto/Charon impact model. |
|
Why was Robin able to succeed where all others failed? Could it be that her Pluto/Charon model also violates angular momentum constraints? While it may be coincidental that only Robin could get models to function which other scientists couldn't and now one of those models is proven to violate the constraints of reality, it then seems reasonable to speculate that her Pluto/Charon model likely has similar constraint violations. |
|
|
Here's another model/cartoon created by Carl Franzen supposedly demonstrating how the moon formed from a large object hitting the Earth.
Take note how this cartoon also shows the collision but then no moon forms from the material of the collision, it simply stops then a message is presented that the debris formed the moon. I suspect these models never did nor never could form a moon as they violate angular momentum constraints. Below are four more variants on this theme from NASA scientists but none show a moon forming. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's interesting to me that all six of these models are supposed to demonstrate how a large body impacted Earth creating our moon from the impact yet none show a moon developing after the impact, could it be because they would have had to violate angular momentum constraints?
Impact Energy
F. Nimmon had this to say about icy bodies in the solar system and the low heat energy level contribution to the differentiation (separation of water ices and rock) process due to impact energy.
According to F. Nimmo, However, the original accretion process and small impacts would play a minor to negligible roll in contributing to differentiation.
Heat Production
For the icy satellites, there are three main sources of heat: accretion, radioactive decay, and tidal heating.
Mars crater with melted surface ice
|
Even for Ganymede-size satellites, the gravitational energy released during accretion is rather modest, so that initial differentiation is not guaranteed [Barr and Canup, 2008]. (Ganymede is more than twice Pluto's size, larger even than Mercury).
If accretion happens sufficiently rapidly, some melting will take place [e.g., Lunine and Stevenson, 1982], but the overall contribution to the existence of present-day oceans is minor to negligible. Francis Nimmo is saying that if impacts occur in rapid enough succession some small degree of surface melting water ice will occur but its contribution to heating the interior is minor to negligible. Its a surface superficial effect similar to what can be seen in this image. |
|
In Nimmo's scenario, impact energy is barely able to heat surface water ice enough to separate the rock from the ice yet we are supposed to accept that impacts on Earth completely liquefied it's entire rock surface turning it into boiling molten lava rock. Impacts on icy bodies are barely able to melt the ice enough to separate out the rock from the ice but impacts on Earth were supposedly able to turn the entirety of Earth's rock surface to liquid lava. These two concepts simply don't align. |
|
|
Do you think this impact crater in Arizona created molten lava out of the rock? Sure there's a localized degree of heat even turning some rock to glass. Even if it could have melted rock how quickly did it then cool? The LHB occurred over a 1.4 billion year time frame. The early solar system was much colder because the Sun was smaller with only 70% its current heat output. During Proto-Sun pre-ignition period, things were colder still. The Earth, during its formative years, must have been covered in ice just like Europa or Enceladus is today and science data now supports that fact. |
Water World Earth
I wanted to add some graphics to this section but this concept is too young and original to find any graphics supporting it.
If Earth was a ball of molten rock during its formation then proponents of this theory are left with a conundrum. How'd the water get here? The late heavy bombardment (LHB) is used to suggest water was delivered by a showering deluge of comets. The problem is that the LHB took place between 2.5 and 3.9 bya, long after the water was already here.
The below article indicates early Earth was in fact almost entirely covered in water 4.4 bya ago that's 500 million to 1.9 billion years prior to the LHB. The LHB took place over a 1.4 billion year time frame. That means impacts occurred quite infrequently. Lots of time passed between impacts allowing the frozen ice ball Earth time to cool between impacts and the Earth was covered in water long before the LHB started.
Quote from "Early Earth Was Almost Entirely Underwater, With Just a Few Islands"
It might seem unlikely, but tiny grains of minerals can help tell the story of early Earth. And researchers studying those grains say that 4.4 billion years ago, Earth was a barren, mountainless place, and almost everything was under water. Only a handful of islands poked above the surface.
Personal side Note: Something about using the term "Late Heavy Bombardment" keeps gnawing at me. The LHB seems to be a bit of a misleading concept as it took place over the course of 1.4 billion years. That's a really long time frame to reference something as being a "Heavy Bombardment". "Late" perhaps, "Heavy"? no way.
If Earth was a ball of molten rock during its formation then proponents of this theory are left with a conundrum. How'd the water get here? The late heavy bombardment (LHB) is used to suggest water was delivered by a showering deluge of comets. The problem is that the LHB took place between 2.5 and 3.9 bya, long after the water was already here.
The below article indicates early Earth was in fact almost entirely covered in water 4.4 bya ago that's 500 million to 1.9 billion years prior to the LHB. The LHB took place over a 1.4 billion year time frame. That means impacts occurred quite infrequently. Lots of time passed between impacts allowing the frozen ice ball Earth time to cool between impacts and the Earth was covered in water long before the LHB started.
Quote from "Early Earth Was Almost Entirely Underwater, With Just a Few Islands"
It might seem unlikely, but tiny grains of minerals can help tell the story of early Earth. And researchers studying those grains say that 4.4 billion years ago, Earth was a barren, mountainless place, and almost everything was under water. Only a handful of islands poked above the surface.
Personal side Note: Something about using the term "Late Heavy Bombardment" keeps gnawing at me. The LHB seems to be a bit of a misleading concept as it took place over the course of 1.4 billion years. That's a really long time frame to reference something as being a "Heavy Bombardment". "Late" perhaps, "Heavy"? no way.
|
Our Sun started out small then grew in stages.
Prior to its ignition the Sun was Jupiter size then it grew to 2, 5, 10, 50 times the size of Jupiter. The early solar system (pre-Sun ignition) at some point was similar to the conditions seen around Jupiter. There would have been lots of radiation generated by our pre-ingnition massive Sun/Planet, slowly accreting material en-route to becoming a star. |
|
Initially proto-planet moons would have formed around this giant proto-sun planet just like they do around Jupiter. eventually these moons would have become planets. The closer the proto-planet moons were to the giant proto-sun planet, the more tidal flex energy was experienced creating molten cores.
Jupiter's moon, Ganymede with its magnetic field and ice crust is an example of how a planet starts out as a moon covered in water ice prior to becoming a planet while Jupiter itself shows how a Sun starts out as a planet surrounded by hydrogen gas and moons prior to igniting becoming a solar system.
With enough mass these proto-planet moons would have formed hot dense cores from eccentric orbits around this growing proto-sun planet while compression forces and radioactive materials like uranium and thorium would have melted the interior initiating a magnetic field just as we see at Ganymede. The solar system's planets were nearly fully formed by the time the Sun actually ignited.
On the surface of these proto-planet moons, lighter volatile water ices would have been frozen with a subsurface ocean and a hot core exactly like we see at Ganymede or Enceladus. Then one day the massive proto-sun planet accumulated enough hydrogen to ignite but it wasn't as massive or hot as it is today.
The Sun's heat output (solar luminosity) increases by about 5-10% per 1-2 billion years it was about 30% cooler 5 Ga, 20% cooler 3 bya and 15% 2 bya. Its heat energy at ignition was enough to melt some of the surface ices around Earth's equator converting the ice Earth into a water world but Earth's magnetosphere would have already existed and helped prevent the solar wind from blowing the lighter volatile gasses away. We can confidently assume this because we can see a miniature version of it at Jupiter and to a lesser degree we can see it at Saturn.
The LHB is not needed nor can it explain the presence of water on Earth as the LHB took place long after the Earth was saturated by water and we now know the large impactor model violates angular momentum constraints. Earth was a mostly covered in water world long before the LHB.
By the time the Sun ignited, planets were most likely already formed and Earth probably had an active magnetic core ready to protect the water vapor atmosphere that would be created by the Sun's energy release following ignition. The Sun produces deuterium which is a Hydrogen atom with a proton and neutron. Our magnetosphere and atmosphere blocks deuterium from reaching Earth but our Moon is loaded with the stuff since it doesn't have either.
Comet 67p is a short period 6 year cyclical Kuiper belt object that has 3 times the deuterium as the water on Earth indicating water was not delivered to Earth by comets but if our Earth was primarily formed by the time the Sun ignited and our early atmosphere was thin but developing this could explain the 3 to 1 ratio of deuterium found on comet 67p compared to Earth. Also consider, the early Sun was smaller and less hot than it is today. The Sun grows hotter by 10% every billion years outputting increasingly larger quantities of deuterium. Once our atmosphere developed it would have stopped deuterium from arriving.
Jupiter's moon, Ganymede with its magnetic field and ice crust is an example of how a planet starts out as a moon covered in water ice prior to becoming a planet while Jupiter itself shows how a Sun starts out as a planet surrounded by hydrogen gas and moons prior to igniting becoming a solar system.
With enough mass these proto-planet moons would have formed hot dense cores from eccentric orbits around this growing proto-sun planet while compression forces and radioactive materials like uranium and thorium would have melted the interior initiating a magnetic field just as we see at Ganymede. The solar system's planets were nearly fully formed by the time the Sun actually ignited.
On the surface of these proto-planet moons, lighter volatile water ices would have been frozen with a subsurface ocean and a hot core exactly like we see at Ganymede or Enceladus. Then one day the massive proto-sun planet accumulated enough hydrogen to ignite but it wasn't as massive or hot as it is today.
The Sun's heat output (solar luminosity) increases by about 5-10% per 1-2 billion years it was about 30% cooler 5 Ga, 20% cooler 3 bya and 15% 2 bya. Its heat energy at ignition was enough to melt some of the surface ices around Earth's equator converting the ice Earth into a water world but Earth's magnetosphere would have already existed and helped prevent the solar wind from blowing the lighter volatile gasses away. We can confidently assume this because we can see a miniature version of it at Jupiter and to a lesser degree we can see it at Saturn.
The LHB is not needed nor can it explain the presence of water on Earth as the LHB took place long after the Earth was saturated by water and we now know the large impactor model violates angular momentum constraints. Earth was a mostly covered in water world long before the LHB.
By the time the Sun ignited, planets were most likely already formed and Earth probably had an active magnetic core ready to protect the water vapor atmosphere that would be created by the Sun's energy release following ignition. The Sun produces deuterium which is a Hydrogen atom with a proton and neutron. Our magnetosphere and atmosphere blocks deuterium from reaching Earth but our Moon is loaded with the stuff since it doesn't have either.
Comet 67p is a short period 6 year cyclical Kuiper belt object that has 3 times the deuterium as the water on Earth indicating water was not delivered to Earth by comets but if our Earth was primarily formed by the time the Sun ignited and our early atmosphere was thin but developing this could explain the 3 to 1 ratio of deuterium found on comet 67p compared to Earth. Also consider, the early Sun was smaller and less hot than it is today. The Sun grows hotter by 10% every billion years outputting increasingly larger quantities of deuterium. Once our atmosphere developed it would have stopped deuterium from arriving.
|
Water World Mars
A recent study released September 19th, 2017 shows that Mars had an atmosphere almost as thick as Earth's 4 bya which means it had oceans of water 100 million years before the LHB.
Quote The research team concluded that Mars had a dense atmosphere 4 billion years ago. The surface air pressure at the time was at least 0.5 bar and could have been much higher. Because Mars had its magnetic field about 4 billion years ago and lost it, the result suggests that stripping by the solar wind is responsible for transforming Mars from a warm wet world into a cold desert world. |
Water World Moon
The moon is now known to possess large quantities of water ice pretty much every where and it wasn't delivered by impactors. An
article in Universal-Sci dated Sept 25th, 2017 shows just how much water there is under the surface of the moon.
article in Universal-Sci dated Sept 25th, 2017 shows just how much water there is under the surface of the moon.
The map shows a general trend of increasing water content (purple, green, and yellows) toward the poles. Image credit Brown
|
Quote
“The signature of water is present nearly everywhere on the lunar surface, not limited to the polar regions as previously reported,” says lead author Shuai Li. Although the bulk of the water mapped in the study could be attributed to solar wind, there were exceptions. For example, higher-than-average concentrations of water were found in lunar volcanic deposits near the moon’s equator, where background water in the soil is scarce. |
Rather than coming from solar wind, the water in those localized deposits likely comes from deep within the moon’s mantle and erupted to the surface in lunar magma. Li and Milliken reported those findings separately in July.
|
The Moon was formed 60 million years after the solar system or 4.51 bya, the Earth was covered in water 4.4 billion years ago, the Earth's magnetic field developed 4.2 bya, Mars had oceans 4 bya and the LHB occurred between 2.5 to 3.9 bya.
Universe-Sci About three billion years ago, small pockets of free oxygen started to appear in the oceans, and then about 2.4 billion years ago, a rapid increase in atmospheric oxygen took place. During this period of about 200 million years, the amount of free oxygen in the atmosphere suddenly jumped by about 10,000 times. |
|
This time is known as the Great Oxidation Event, and it transformed the Earth’s surface chemical reactions entirely.
This new data indicates the Earth was a water world from the outset.
Earth did not get impacted by a theoretical Mars sized or larger object vaporizing all the water, it was not a ball of hot liquid rock, the Moon was not accreted from molten material rather it developed from rocky water icy stuff from multiple smaller impacts. The moon formed very early on. Earth's water and atmosphere were protected by a magnetic field at least within the first 350 million years. Based on the fact Ganymede has a magnetic core I'm suggesting the Earth's magnetic core existed prior to 4.2 bya. The rise of oxygen between 2.4 and 3 bya suggests life took a foothold on Earth during the time of the LHB.
This new data indicates the Earth was a water world from the outset.
Earth did not get impacted by a theoretical Mars sized or larger object vaporizing all the water, it was not a ball of hot liquid rock, the Moon was not accreted from molten material rather it developed from rocky water icy stuff from multiple smaller impacts. The moon formed very early on. Earth's water and atmosphere were protected by a magnetic field at least within the first 350 million years. Based on the fact Ganymede has a magnetic core I'm suggesting the Earth's magnetic core existed prior to 4.2 bya. The rise of oxygen between 2.4 and 3 bya suggests life took a foothold on Earth during the time of the LHB.
|
With the early Earth forming from the same material as Europa, Ganymede or Enceladus it would have had large quantities of water ice on the surface as small to medium sized impactors came along and hit at high speeds dislodging rock and ice from Earth which later formed into our moon.
The water would have then acted to quickly cool the surface from even relatively large impacts. Our Moon has an abundance of water below the surface supporting this scenario. If one giant object hit Earth creating the Moon, this suggests both it and the Earth needed to start fresh without any water ice because the scale of that impact would have vaporized all the water and turned the surface of both bodies molten. If that took place then some mechanism like the LHB has to be employed to replenish the water. |
However, with multiple smaller impacts both Earth and Moon could form and easily develop with water ice present during the formation process while maintaining the crucial angular momentum constraints and conforming to evidence which shows that water existed in abundance in ancient Earth rocks along with evidence of subsurface water which exists on the Moon.
As these new studies indicate, smaller irregular impacts creating our Moon would have given Earth's surface time to cool between impact events in addition it would have allowed rocky water ice (Earth's crust) material ejected from those impacts to coalesce into our Moon.
Math models are, as often as not, reflections of preconceived expectations.
Even when fictitious facts are not employed, the data and calculations are susceptible to false interpretations and pre-prejudiced suppositions.
As these new studies indicate, smaller irregular impacts creating our Moon would have given Earth's surface time to cool between impact events in addition it would have allowed rocky water ice (Earth's crust) material ejected from those impacts to coalesce into our Moon.
Math models are, as often as not, reflections of preconceived expectations.
Even when fictitious facts are not employed, the data and calculations are susceptible to false interpretations and pre-prejudiced suppositions.
Fictional Facts
Bill McKinnon
At an LPSC 2016 press conference, Bill McKinnon initiated global acceptance of the; SP impact theory, subsurface ocean theory with 5% ammonia, 65% differentiated rock radius and the radioactive hot 26AL core theory.
Bill says Chances of getting an impact crater the size of Sputnik Planitia in the last 4 Ga is less than one percent. This makes Sputnik Planitia a very, very ancient structure?
Bill is suggesting that SP is an impact crater over 4 billion years old because of its size and yet it is currently an active geological site.
Bill says Chances of getting an impact crater the size of Sputnik Planitia in the last 4 Ga is less than one percent. This makes Sputnik Planitia a very, very ancient structure?
Bill is suggesting that SP is an impact crater over 4 billion years old because of its size and yet it is currently an active geological site.
- Are there any craters anywhere that are 4 billion years old and geologically active? Geology destroys evidence of craters eroding and erasing them making them smaller and smaller over time.
- The radius of Pluto's core is far too small to be radioactively hot
- Without a hot core, there is no subsurface ocean but Bill continues to push these theories forward.
- At LPSC 2016 Bill admits there is no ejecta at Sputnik Planitia then 6 months later he claims there is evidence of ejecta then 2 months later he's back to presenting the concept of ejecta as a question.
- Bill changed the size of SP by 150 km to help support his impact theory.
- Bill has changed the impact angle from 5% to greater than 45%
Before we arrived at Pluto Bill took part in writing another paper in which the following statement was made - The radiogenic heating provided by the core can potentially melt the mantle ice and form a subsurface ocean (Hussmann et al., 2006; McKinnon, 2006). - here Bill has concluded Pluto had an internal ocean ten years prior to the flyby.
Kelsi Singer
Kelsi partook in a study from which she created a chart with data that indicated Pluto's small satellites were proven to be 4 billion years old via impact crater counting.
Take note of the positions of the 9 data points in this cut away of her chart released at a press conference. |
|
|
In the study they acknowledged the fact the small satellites have water ice surfaces determined by their albedo and spectral analysis.
Problem was how do you explain 4 Ga old surfaces which should be dark as charcoal but are white as ice looking bright as snow with spectral data indicting water ice. Simon Porter suggested micro meteorites might have repeatedly impacted their surfaces, knocking off the dusty dark regolith. The double dip at 1.5 and 1.65 in this chart is an indicator of water, the reflectance is the albedo or brightness factor. I added a yellow line indicating the typical reflectance of other nearby regolith covered Plutinos. |
|
The study displays impact crater chart data "Scaled by 2.6". Scaling the data by 2.6 would reflect impacts created on a water ice surface.
But when I calculated the actual data points on the chart I found out the majority were scaled by 2.1 which is the value used for scaling regolith. This had the effect of sliding the data points to the right. By sliding the data to the right it then helps sell the idea that "the data" suggests the moons are older than water ice impacts would reflect. |
|
Not satisfied with this degree of deception, Kelsi Singer took it a step further. Kelsi scaled all the data points by 2.1 and eliminated more than fifty percent of the data points on her chart from those contained within the study. Kelsi only left 50% of the regolith scaled data that supported the expected outcome.
|
I decided to take Kesi's chart, reinsert all the data points and scale them correctly by 2.1 to see what the true data results would show.
Doing this, adjusted the theoretical age of the moons based on crater counting to the left. Crater counting is a method that's far from objective according to one of the paper's scientist's (1st page of this paper). I then averaged the 2.1 scaled data points for each of the moons individually as well as averaging them all together. While the youngest single data point age came in at 1.85 Ga on Nix, the youngest average age indicator is from Hydra at about 2.1 Ga, the overall average is 2.65 Ga. That's a far cry from the 4 Ga age being sold to the main stream media. |
Robin Canup
Robin created a model which suggests two similarly sized impactors collided creating our Earth & Moon, a model which is now shown to violate angular momentum constraints. Robin's modeling error may simply be an honest mistake, if that's the case then it shows just how easy it is to get it wrong even with all these math formulas and models. This demonstrates how the end result of models can easily become a reflection of what someone seeks to find. Under the best case scenario, your eyes see what you seek to find, its difficult to be truly non-biased.
Key NASA scientists like Bill, Kelsi and Robin become the main stream media dispensers and bearers of the world's planetary knowledge and wisdom. Their sycophant minions seek favor and accolades by mindlessly parroting similar minded conclusions regardless of contradictory facts. Then regurgistist spread their gospel message in the mainstream media.
Its not just that they manipulate world opinion its that they restrict, stifle and suffocate original thought with their pseudo science, hence slowing our growth and knowledge as we expand into our solar system. How many years will it take now for these false representations to get corrected?
If you want more detailed info about these three scientists, you may wish to read these pages.
1. Page 70 - Bill McKinnon
2. Page 67 - Kelsi Singer
3. Page 56 - Robin Canup
Key NASA scientists like Bill, Kelsi and Robin become the main stream media dispensers and bearers of the world's planetary knowledge and wisdom. Their sycophant minions seek favor and accolades by mindlessly parroting similar minded conclusions regardless of contradictory facts. Then regurgistist spread their gospel message in the mainstream media.
Its not just that they manipulate world opinion its that they restrict, stifle and suffocate original thought with their pseudo science, hence slowing our growth and knowledge as we expand into our solar system. How many years will it take now for these false representations to get corrected?
If you want more detailed info about these three scientists, you may wish to read these pages.
1. Page 70 - Bill McKinnon
2. Page 67 - Kelsi Singer
3. Page 56 - Robin Canup
|
I am grateful for those few lone scientific voices in the wilderness that eventually produce real testable science data which is shown to contradict this sloppy media hype manipulated frenzied ego driven fictional based data. Go science! I ponder I wonder If only Pluto had a fire hydrant upon which I could lift my leg. What then? Consider the possibilities! |
|
Frank Wilczek quote
Like Columbus, who found the new world while seeking a way to the old, explorers who make landfall on unexpected continents of ideas are often unprepared to accept what they have found. They keep seeking what they set out to find.
Freeman Dyson quote
Wrong theories are not an impediment to science, they are a central part of the struggle.
If you don't make mistakes, you don't make progress.
Like Columbus, who found the new world while seeking a way to the old, explorers who make landfall on unexpected continents of ideas are often unprepared to accept what they have found. They keep seeking what they set out to find.
Freeman Dyson quote
Wrong theories are not an impediment to science, they are a central part of the struggle.
If you don't make mistakes, you don't make progress.
A little sompin sompin for nuttin
