Was there a second sun in our solar system 200 million years ago, orbiting in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter?

Initial Release: January 15, 2014
Last Updated: October 18, 2014

This page contains the full article. To read the article by parts click here

Summary and Overview

Have you ever wondered why Mars is red , covered with a layer of iron oxide (rust), and why it is polluted with huge amounts of uranium and other radioactive materials?

Isn't it true that dying oxygen-rich stars produce iron oxide?

It is also true that radioactive materials are produced by dying stars.

Could it be that Mars was neighboring to a star that is not in existence today?!



The picture above says it all. A second sun was in the sky around 200 million years ago! Some of its remains are found now in the asteroid belt. It was a very huge sun. Not smaller than the current sun, if not bigger.

It is said that the early Earth was hotter than today, with estimates of surface temperatures between 45 and 85 °C. On the other hand, it is said that the early Sun was cool, giving only 70% of solar heat, or even less. So what was the source of that extra heat?

After the summary we will see in details the signs the second sun has left on Mars, Earth and other planets.

The dominant theory for the asteroid belt is that the rocks and metals that are orbiting in the belt now are leftover materials, failed to come together to form a planet. Another suggestion says that there was a planet in that orbit, collided with another object and broken apart.

Now if we assume a space object used to orbit in the asteroid belt, and we look at it from the impact that it has left on the planet Mars in particular, and the whole solar system in general, that object cannot be anything but a sun (star)!

All earth and space theories have been formulated without considering a second sun in the solar system. As a result, they ended up either partially or completely incorrect. For example, two theories exist to explain the continental edges that fit together on the world map. The dominant theory is the Continental Drift, also called, Plate Tectonics. The other theory is the Expanding Earth. The plate tectonics theory states that the continents before 200 million years were united in a very vast ocean, and then they started to move. Even though this theory seems to explain the continental edges that fit together on the Atlantic and other smaller seas, it completely ignores the same phenomenon on the Pacific! The Expanding Earth theory does not ignore the continental edges that fit together on the Pacific, but it does not give a reason for why the earth is expanding!

Why does the earth have water and the other planets don't? Although oxygen-rich stars do produce large amounts of oxygen and water vapor, especially at the time of formation, when they are just igniting, none of the existing theories, at least the popular ones, has suggested a star as the source of oxygen and water in the earth!

Many changes and events have taken place in the earth and other planets throughout the history of the solar system, but most of them are still a puzzle. Something must be missing somewhere!

Earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanic eruptions are still occurring and killing thousands of people, but because the specialists are not aware of what has happened in the past, in order to know how the earth works today, these disasters remain a mystery.

In this article we will try to rework some of the earth and space theories to see how things will turn out when taking the second sun as a prime factor in the equation of our solar system.

The Second Sun -- Just like many types of stars in the final stage of their lives, and because of the changes and events that have happened in the earth and other planets, the second sun must have emitted extremely powerful gamma and neutron rays at the end of its life cycle. These rays have led to major changes and disasters in the earth, and also changes in the other inner planets! The inner planets are the earth, the moon, Mars, Venus and Mercury.

The emitted gamma and/or neutron rays most likely have caused ionization (chemical action/reaction process) of gases in the earth's mantle (the layer that is just below the crust) that led the mantle to explode and the earth's crust to break. When that happened, life extinction resulted and almost all life on the earth died out, including insects. This is the Permian –Triassic extinction event, the worst and longest lasting disaster to ever hit the earth.

Large quantities of meteoroids have fallen down from the sky and gone all the way down to the mantle via large holes and trenches that were resulted from the explosions that have taken place inside the mantle.

These meteoroids are actually igneous rocks, and they were originally part of the second sun. They were thrown by the second sun during its explosion period, and then they came to orbit the planets. After falling on the earth, they formed the ocean floor and rocky mountains, as well as the so-called "lowlands" and mountains in the other inner planets.

Most, if not all, of the base metals on the Earth such as iron, magnesium, platinum, gold and silver have come from that sun. They arrived on the earth either as pure metals or as ingredients of rocks, which are the same rocks that contain metals now, specifically the rocks that make up the ocean floor and mountains, plus the molten rocks inside the mantle.

Because of the added material, the earth has expanded, and its mass has increased. The expansion happened only once, and the earth is not continuously expanding as stated by the expanding earth theory. And because of the water that is filling ocean basins, the land chunks (continents) are still drifting! What we see here is that the Continental Drift and the Expanding Earth theories are both correct in certain aspects.

Before the expansion, the earth's size was just about the third of its current size, while its mass was much less than the third of its current mass. The increase of mass led to the increase of gravity.

After the gravity of the earth increased, the earth has captured the moon. Before that, the moon was a planet orbiting the main sun in its own orbit, either between Earth and Venus, or between Earth and Mars, but closer to Earth.

Before the formation of the ocean floor, only shallow water existed on the earth in lakes and rivers. Regarding mountains, only sandstone mountains existed in the past. The only mineral that can be found in the old sandstone mountains is coal. Despite coal is not metal, but people have to mine it, that is why it is classified as mineral.

The other inner planets have also expanded. The lowlands (blue) on the other planets, which are equivalent to the ocean floor on the Earth, are added parts, plus mountains. All lowlands, in all planets, including the earth, are younger in age than the highlands! This is a clear indication that they have been created at a late time.

Since there is no water on the other inner planets, there is no continental drift over there.

Knowing the role the second sun has played in the formation of the earth and the other inner planets, will help understand how the earth and other planets work, which can lead to forecast disasters people are facing today, such as forecasting earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanic eruptions.

The general assumption is that earthquakes are caused by movements of the so-called tectonic plates (earth plates), and the plates are pushed by ocean ridges. If this is the case, and the source of earthquakes is ocean ridges, then it is better to watch the source and see whether it shows any abnormal behavior at the time of, or before, earthquakes? If the source is available and reachable, it is meaningless to wait for a disaster at the destination, where it is too late to react and do anything about it!

It is true that earth plates sometimes move during earthquakes, but this is a result and not a cause.


Pulsar Star

After examining the signs of these disasters, it seems that they result from ionization of gases inside the earth's mantle. The cause of ionization is distant dying stars emitting gamma and neutron rays, most likely pulsars, or other stars with the same attributes and behavior. What makes the pulsar energies to go undetected is that chemical reactions inside the mantle do not occur instantly. And because of the time the chemical reactions take to show up, earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanic eruptions do not appear, from the general observation, to have any relation with cosmic rays in space.

 

Table of Contents

1. Planets in the Solar System (updated: Oct.12.2014)

2. Earth with 2 Sunrises and 2 Sunsets

3. Why is Mars Red?

4. A Nuclear Explosion on Mars!

5. The Source of Rocks on the Surface of Mars?

6. Life Extinction 250 Million Years Ago!

7. The Source of Metallic Elements on the Earth

8. The Source of Oxygen and Water on the Earth

9. The Size and Nature of the Second Sun (updated: Oct.18.2014)

10. Expansion in All Inner Planets

11. Earth has Expanded and Continents are Drifting!

12. The Effect of Water on the Earth's Lowland

13. How Are Mountains Formed?

14. Earthquakes, Tsunamis and Volcanoes

15. The End of Life on the Earth

16. Conclusion

 

1. Planets in the Solar System

The solar system consists of the so-called inner planets, which are the ones that are inside the asteroid belt; and the outer planets, which are outside the asteroid belt.

The outer planets, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune and Uranus, are also called, gas giant planets, because they are in a gas form. The apparent reason for these planets to remain in a gas from is that they are far away from the sun.

You can ignore Pluto in the picture above, because it is not considered a planet any more, but just an asteroid.

Based on the material that makes up the outer planets, we conclude that the earth and the other inner planets would have been in a gas form if there was no sun, or if the sun was not giving enough heat and other radiations! It seems that the energies that the sun produces affect only the gases that make up planets, in a way that nobody knows yet, and turn them into solid, liquid, and other gases and matters. This gives an idea about the very important role the sun has played in the development of the inner planets.

But one sun is not enough, two suns are required for the earth to be in the form it is now. One sun gives life, and the other sun gives resources the life depends on.

Many theories have been formulated to explain the formation of the solar system, but all of them are not applicable to what we have in this article, because they are based on a single sun system. And because they are based on a single sun, they have many unresolved problems. For example, the solar nebula theory seems to work with the rocky planets, but it fails to explain the gas giant planets! Furthermore, it has no answer for why the earth is different from the other inner planets.

Recent discoveries have shown that there are planets with two suns; planet Kepler-16b is an example.

NASA’s Kepler Mission Discovers a World Orbiting Two Stars
http://kepler.nasa.gov/news/nasakeplernews/index.cfm?FuseAction=ShowNews&NewsID=152

It is said that planet Kepler-16b is orbiting two suns, and it is a gas giant planet like Saturn. Saturn also used to orbit two suns, the existing sun and the one that was in the asteroid belt! So we have a very similar situation.

Now if one sun in Kepler-16b solar system explodes, it will form an asteroid belt around the other sun, just like the asteroid belt that we have in our solar system. Planet Kepler-16b will orbit one sun, plus an asteroid belt, just like Saturn now. Both of them are gas giant planets, and both of them are outside their asteroid belts. But if Kepler-16b is inside its asteroid belt, it is most likely to be similar to one of the rocky planets that we have in our solar system.

Even though Kepler-16b solar system differs from our solar system, especially in the number of planets, but it shows that planets orbiting around two suns, and far away from the sun heat and radiations, are not the same as planets orbiting "between" two suns and very close to their solar energies.

The picture above is from an article about a discovery of a terrestrial planet that is similar to the inner planets that we have in our solar system. QUOTE: "At twice the mass of Earth, the planet orbits one of the stars in the binary system at almost exactly the same distance from which Earth orbits the sun... The study provides the first evidence that terrestrial planets can form in orbits similar to Earth's, even in a binary star system where the stars are not very far apart."... "This greatly expands the potential locations to discover habitable planets in the future," said Scott Gaudi, professor of astronomy at Ohio State. "Half the stars in the galaxy are in binary systems. We had no idea if Earth-like planets in Earth-like orbits could even form in these systems."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140703142151.htm

In the quote above, it seems they are surprised to see an earth-like planet in a binary (double) star system where the stars are not far apart, and the planet is orbiting one star and not both. This situation was considered impossible using the currently accepted model of planet formation. But there it is!
 

Center of Mass

A question about the gravitational pull of the two stars that might come to mind: how a small star can pull a bigger star?

First of all we cannot say for certain it was bigger, or even of the same mass, but let's assume so.

The fact is that it is not the bigger star that is pulling planets and other smaller stars (if there is any). They all rotate around a center of mass. Currently the center of mass of the solar system is located inside (or very near) the sun, but it is not in the center of the sun. For this reason the sun seems to rotate around itself. Actually it is not rotating around its center, but around the center of mass of the entire solar system, which happened to be inside (or very near) the sun.

In a simple binary system, the center of mass is closer to the bigger star, or in the middle of the two stars if they have the same mass

In a two-body system, the center of mass of the system is near the body that has a bigger mass

 

The hammer above is an example of a simple two-body system where the center of mass is inside the body that has more mass

 

In a multibody system the center of mass has to be at a point inside the system that keeps the entire system balanced, and that point does not have to be near the biggest body. It depends on the distribution of the various objects inside the system.

In a binary (double) star system, the two stars orbit around an "invisible" point, that is the center of mass between the two stars. If the binary system has two stars only, the center of mass is located near the bigger star (or inside it). But if the system consists of two stars, plus many planets, the center of mass does not have to be near (or inside) the bigger star. It has to be somewhere inside the system to balance everything in it.

Regarding our solar system in the past, the center of mass doesn't seem to have changed much since then, because some of the remains (rocks and metals) of the dead sun have remained in the asteroid belt, and some others have landed in the planets and made mountains and the sea floor in the earth, plus mountains and lowlands in the other inner planets. Some other solid materials may have gone inside Jupiter. So the overall balance of the solar system remained as it was.

However, it is possible that the inner planets were shifted outward slightly, and the outer (gas) planets moved inward, to compensate for the destroyed object and maintain the same center of mass. But the order of their positions remained the same. It is also possible that the moon came to orbit the earth to provide a better overall balance to the solar system, and before this shift it was a planet running in its own orbit between Venus and Earth.

QUOTE: "You've heard that Earth revolves around the sun. Well, that's not quite true! Here's what's really going on: The exact center of all the material (that is, mass) that makes up an object—whether a planet or a pencil—is called its center of gravity."
http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/barycenter/en/

QUOTE: "The terms 'center of mass' and 'center of gravity' are used synonymously in a uniform gravity field to represent the unique point in an object or system which can be used to describe the system's response to external forces and torques."
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/cm.html

In addition, each object has its own center of mass. For example, the earth has a center of mass that the moon orbits around it. And all objects orbit in such a way in order to keep the entire solar system balanced.


2. Earth with 2 Sunrises and 2 Sunsets

Now we will see how the situation on the Earth was when the second sun was functioning normally.

Oxygen isotope data from ancient sedimentary rocks suggest that the early Earth was much hotter than today, QUOTE: "according to oxygen isotope records, early Earth surface temperatures could have been as high as 45 – 85 degrees C!"
http://atoc.colorado.edu/~seand/headinacloud/?p=88

On the other hand, it is said that the early Sun was cool, because it was young, giving only 70% of solar heat, or even less. So where did the extra heat on the earth come from? Many theories have been presented, but without any supporting evidence at all.
http://www.space.com/5791-early-earth-freeze.html

In the present time, as everybody knows, a day on the Earth is 24 hours, but the early Earth's day is said to be much shorter. It was about five to six hours only. One theory suggests that a large object, in the size of Mars, impacted the Earth and set it to spin very fast. But there is no sign of such a large object to ever hit the earth! QUOTE: "Scientists estimate that a day in the life of early Earth was only about 6 hours long."
http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/review/dr-marc-earth/earth-rotation.html

Now we have alternative explanations, the early earth was not rotating so rapidly, it is just the other sun made the day seems so short. Regarding the early Earth's temperature, the extra heat was coming from the second sun.

However, in order to satisfy the above conditions, the second sun has to orbit the main sun in parallel with the earth, as shown in the opposite picture. If we were living on the earth at that time, we would have seen one sun sets and the other sun immediately rises from the same direction where the previous sun sets. This kind of rotation would make the day seems very short, and the surface temperature of the earth very high, all the time. Based on this scenario, we can call the second sun, the Night Sun

But this parallel orbiting is very likely has changed at the end of the second sun's life, after it has lost a lot of its solid body.

 

3. Why is Mars Red?

Mars is the closest planet to the asteroid belt, the orbit of the second sun. And because of its position, it is very naturally to be affected by that sun more than any other planet in the solar system.

QUOTE: "The short answer to 'why is Mars red' is that the planet is covered in rust. Iron oxide to be exact... The short answer does not explain where all of the iron oxide comes from, though. There is a larger percentage of iron on the Martian surface than there is on other planets. The exact source is unknown, but many scientists believe that it came from the volcanoes that used to erupt all over the planet."
http://www.universetoday.com/22580/why-is-mars-red/

According to the above answer, volcanoes could have been the source of rust. But volcanoes did not produce the same result on other planets, not even close! Needless to say that there is no evidence to show that volcanoes existed all over Mars, let alone they were behind this rust. The total number of volcanoes on Mars that once were active is about 20 only. Now all of them are dead.

Moreover, Mars is a planet, and planets, as we will see later, do not have the energy to produce iron. If we assume that Mars had iron since the time of formation, then all other planets should have the same percentage of iron, because in the beginning all planets were together in one unit. So what makes one planet to have iron more than the others? What we see here is that the rust has been imposed on the planet at a very late time.

Instead of assuming volcanoes as the source of rust, we let the source be a neighboring dying star, a very close neighbor.

When stars die, they produce rust, iron-oxide (iron+oxygen).

Oxygen-rich stars, when they die, they produce large quantities of water vapor (H2O), plus iron, mixed together with heat to form iron-oxide, rust (it is also called, iron dust), like grains of red sand. This mixture does not travel far away from the dying star before it gets scattered in space. Only nearby objects are affected in large quantities.

By looking at the surface of Mars, we see the distribution of very fine rust all over the planet. It is like someone held a blower and blew fine rust, in equal quantities, on the surface of Mars. And that is exactly what happened, but the blower was very, very big!

The stage when dead stars produce iron-oxide lasts for thousands of years. Unlike the earth, Mars was not orbiting in parallel with the second sun, but its very close position makes it vulnerable to the effect of that sun more than any other planet.

 

4. A Nuclear Explosion on Mars!


Mare Acidalium

Mystery: "It has long been a mystery of why there is a super-abundance of uranium, thorium, and potassium on the Martian surface concentrated near Mare Acidalium in the region of the large, shallow depression. Also, the Martian atmosphere has an unusual amount of radiogenic isotopes. An explanation for this Martian mystery was presented by Space Physicist John Brandenburg at the 42nd Lunar and Planetary Science Conference in Houston, TX this month. According to the press release, Brandenburg suggests, evidence shows that approximately 180 million years ago the planet Mars was devastated by a massive natural nuclear explosion. This natural event filled its atmosphere with radio-isotopes, irradiated its soil and atmosphere with neutrons, and spread a layer of radioactive material on the surface of Mars. His analysis estimates the force of the explosion to have been in excess of 1 million one megaton hydrogen bombs."
http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2011/03/11/a-nuclear-explosion-on-mars/

The above explanation is based on the assumption that a nuclear reactor has developed naturally on Mars, and then exploded by itself. The explosion was in excess of one million hydrogen bombs; each bomb is one million ton.

This kind of explosion nobody can say for certain it can happen naturally in a planet, but stars are nuclear reactors basically. And if the explosion indeed has taken place on Mars itself, it would have created huge craters on its surface, but no such craters exist!

It looks like the explosion has taken place in the neighborhood, and the concentration of its radiations and radioactive materials was Mars.

However, the pollution of radioactive materials on the entire surface and atmosphere of Mars may not be due to the explosion only, but also due to the radiation of the dying sun on the planet Mars over a very long period of time; just like the rust.

The assumption in the quote above doesn't say where these radioactive materials have come from initially, but generally it is assumed that the solar system has got its radioactive materials from an explosion of an imaginary giant star called supernova explosion. This supernova explosion is assumed to have injected radioactive materials into the solar system at the time of formation.

Some others are finding the supernova theory problematic, and now they are developing new ideas, QUOTE: "Strong winds from a nearby dying star may have injected radioactive material into the early Solar System, according to a new model of star death."
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/building-blocks-early-solar-system-came-nearby-dying-star/

The nearby dying star mentioned in the quote above is also an imaginary one, just like the supernova explosion. But if we look at it from the impact it had left on Mars, we will not find it anywhere other than the asteroid belt, because the amount of radioactive materials on Mars is much more than any other planet in the solar system, or maybe more than all planets combined together!

It is mentioned in the first quote in this section that the professor has evidence shows that the explosion happened about 180 million years ago. The article on the given link does not say what that evidence is, but the time, 180 million years ago, seems close to the time frame we are looking at! The seafloor on Earth formed about 200 million years ago, and mountains started to rise around that time. In fact, all major changes on the earth have taken place around that time.

 

5. The Source of Rocks on the Surface of Mars?

QUOTE: "The average surface abundance of centimeter- to meter-scale rocks is much greater on Mars than the other terrestrial planets."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martian_surface

Because Mars is the closest planet to the asteroid belt, and because it is polluted with rust and radioactive materials, it shouldn't be a surprise to see it having igneous rocks on its surface more than any other planet.

QUOTE: "the Martian crust consists mostly of volcanic basalt rock."
http://www.space.com/16895-what-is-mars-made-of.html

Just like the rust, the assumed source of these rocks is volcanoes. But this hasn't been proven yet.

Basalt (also called Mafic) rock is rich of iron and magnesium. And these metallic elements are ingredients of the rock. In order to make such a mix, a very special process is required, a process that nobody knows, and not the normal natural factors like wind and rain. This indicates that they have arrived readymade from factory. And that factory must be capable of manufacturing iron and magnesium. The only source in the universe that is known for certain to make these metallic elements (as we will see later) is stars.

However, it is unlikely that these rocks have come out of the dead sun as a solid material, but in the form of lava (molten rock). Later on, lava pieces solidified and became solid rocks, and then they have fallen on Mars.

 

6. Life Extinction 250 Million Years Ago!

QUOTE: "Among paleontologists, it's sometimes called the 'Great Dying.' Roughly a quarter of a billion years ago, 90-95 percent of all life on Earth died out. It took 30 million years for the planet to recover. What happened? Most people are familiar with the extinction event 65 million years ago that wiped out the dinosaurs. But the Great Dying was much more devastating. It left almost nothing alive... Earth scientists Sarda Sahney and Michael J Benton call it 'the most devastating ecological event of all time."
http://io9.com/5558871/why-did-nearly-all-life-on-earth-die-250-million-years-ago

Wikipedia: Permian –Triassic extinction event
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extinction_event

The Great Dying
http://www.mtu.edu/research/archives/magazine/2011/stories/great-dying/

Now these millions of years are just estimates, a margin of no less than 10%, or even more, must be considered. However, any number around 200 million years should be acceptable. The same rule is applied to the time we are talking about in this article; when we say 200 million years, it doesn't mean it is a fixed date, any number around it is acceptable. The 200 million years is just a rounded figure based on the age of the oldest ocean floor and the oldest rocky mountain. The changes must have begun initially before 200 million years, but the result of these changes started to show up around 200 million years ago.

It is mentioned in the quote above that 90-95% of life on the earth has died out. When we see a percentage like this, 90-95%, it could also be 95-100% died out, including insects. But even if one or two groups of animals survived, so what? The most important thing is the magnitude of the disaster. It is the most extensive extinction crisis to ever hit the earth. It took the earth about 30 million years to recover. It is a very long lasting disaster. This type of life extinction adds evidence that shows that a completely abnormal event has taken place on the earth around that time, and lasted for a very, very long time. Following this event is the formation of sea floor, rise of mountains and continental drift!

The assumed cause: "Lava flow 250 million years ago likely killed most of Earth's life --A massive flow of molten rock, bubbling to the surface and spreading more than a mile deep over an area half the size of Australia, may have killed up to 90 percent of all animal species on Earth some 250 million years ago, a study suggests. The study shows that the flood of molten rock that created what is known as the Siberian Traps in Russia was almost twice as big as previously believed and could have continued for thousands of years, changing the climate of the entire planet."
http://www.seattlepi.com/national/article/Lava-flow-250-million-years-ago-likely-killed-1088915.php


Lava Flow
Scientists who have studied the basaltic lava flow in Siberian Traps assumed the lava itself has caused the life extinction. Based on what we are talking about in this article, this lava flow should be a result, and not a cause. It is just one more item to add on the list of evidence. Needless to say that lava or any other natural phenomenon does not happen automatically by itself. An igniter must always be there, but people are unaware of the causes. Can you imagine rain without clouds?!

It is thought that this lava flow has lasted for thousands of years, but the disaster on Earth lasted for about 30 million years. Therefore, this lava flow is unlikely has anything to do with that life extinction. In fact, it seems that the thing that has caused the life extinction has also caused the massive lava flow in Siberian Traps. And because the event is a lava flow, that thing has something to do with the earth's mantle; it has caused an overflow in the mantle.

Again, the given age of 250 million years is just an estimate, and shouldn't be taken as an accurate figure. But we will accept it, as long as it is around 200 million years. However, if there is any radiometric dating for a basaltic lava flow on the earth older than 250 million years, it should "not" be accepted. If basalt rocks existed on the earth before that time, they would have shown up in sea floor. But when the result is zero all over the world oceans, it also means zero inside the mantle. And if the mantle does not have any basalt rocks, how will it produce basaltic lava flow?

 

7. The Source of Metallic Elements on the Earth

All of the base metals on the earth such as iron, gold, silver, platinum, zinc, copper, etc. are not originally made on the earth, because the earth is a planet, and planets do not have enough energy to create these elements from atoms. The base metals can be made only in very powerful nuclear reactors, in stars.

QUOTE: "Our work shows that most of the precious metals on which our economies and many key industrial processes are based have been added to our planet by lucky coincidence when the Earth was hit by about 20 billion billion tones of asteroidal material."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110907132044.htm

QUOTE: "The heavier the star, the more different elements it will make, and the shorter its life. Our Sun, on the other hand, will not make much past helium. In addition, it is only the more massive stars that go supernova. So, if a star makes iron, it will likely go supernova."
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980226a.html

What we see in the above two quotes is that metallic elements have been delivered to the earth, as well as to the other inner planets in our solar system, from a star that is unlike our sun.

The size of stars mentioned in the second quote above isn't an issue here. And whether the size or the chemical composition of the star that determines its function is another uncertain issue.

Metallic elements like iron can be either pure metals or metals as ingredients of rocks.

There is no technique to estimate the age of metals. But since metals can be ingredients of rocks, the age of the rock can be used to know the time when the metallic elements were delivered to the earth. These rocks are the same as the ones that make up ocean floor and mountains. And since there is no rocky mountain on the Earth older than 200 million years, and there is no ocean floor older than 200 million years, we have to say, based on the common sense, that the metals along with their containing rocks, have arrived to the earth around that time only, about 200 million years ago.

The added rocks and metals at a late time must have increased the mass and size of the earth. The increase of mass means an increase in gravity. And the increase in size means the earth has expanded. All of this means that the earth in the past was not the same as the earth today.

 

8. The Source of Oxygen and Water on the Earth

In the previous section we have looked at the metallic elements. But the chemical elements that are produced only by stars are not limited only to metals. Many other base chemical elements in the universe are made only in stars.

Oxygen is the third-most abundant element in the universe, because the universe contains a lot of stars. About 21 percent of the earth's atmosphere is oxygen. So where has it come from? Distant stars?! If this is the case, then all the solar system planets should have oxygen of the same quantity, or in a very close percentage, because they are relatively close to each other. If we assume oxygen storms from the universe hit the solar system some time in the past, the storms would have affected all the planets in very close percentages.

Some have attributed the high percentage of oxygen on the earth to bacteria supposedly lived on the earth billions of years ago. But bacteria, whether the one that is supposed to have created oxygen, or any others, are not base chemical elements. They themselves are created from oxygen. And until this day new types of bacteria are being created from oxygen.

The Origin of Oxygen in Earth's Atmosphere
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=origin-of-oxygen-in-atmosphere

The only source in the universe that is known for certain to produce oxygen is stars.

The problem is that stars are all over the universe, but the amount of oxygen on the earth is not increasing. So the source cannot be any general stars, but a very special one! And that very special one must "not" be in existence today; otherwise the amount of oxygen will increase. And for the same reason, it cannot be our sun too.

From the rust on Mars, we can tell that the second sun was an oxygen-rich star. And we saw in that section that the second sun has produced large quantities of water vapor (H2O) mixed with iron particles in order to produce rust. So all the elements that make up oxygen and water were available in that sun.

What makes the earth different from the other planets in terms of the oxygen quantity is the way the second sun was orbiting in the solar system.

There is no way for the earth to have more oxygen than the other planets unless the second sun was orbiting the main sun in parallel with the earth, as it is shown in this picture, which is the same picture that we have talked about previously.

In this parallel orbiting the second sun has been giving the earth small but constant amount of oxygen for a very long period of time, for millions of years, since the time of the solar system formation.

Now we will see the most likely way the earth got water.

In the beginning all the planets were in a gas form, and they were very close to each other. The stars formed first and ignited, but they were not very hot, because they are very new.

It is very likely the second sun stormed the earth with water vapor when the planets were close to each other, for a very long time, in parallel orbiting, and when the second sun was "not" very hot.

If you think this assumption is unlikely the way the earth got water, think about the rust on Mars. The rust arrived on the surface of Mars in large quantities before it gets scattered in space. The distance between the earth and the second sun when they were just forming is very likely was shorter than the distance between Mars and the second sun when the second sun was about to die.

Since life on the earth started only in the Cambrian period, we have to rule out the presence of water on the surface of the earth in any form, ice or liquid, before the Cambrian. Needless to say that there is no evidence to show otherwise.

It looks like the water vapor received from the second sun has concentrated in a lower layer in the earth's interior. Later on, after the earth's crust solidified, and for some unknown dynamic and/or chemical process, water vapor started to come close to the surface of the earth, specifically in the upper part of the earth's mantle.

Finally, volcanoes erupted and produced water vapor that formed clouds and then rain. And until this day, volcanoes are still producing water vapor that makes clouds and rain. Up to 70% of the volcanic gases is water vapor.

The water on the Earth is of a fixed quantity, but part of it seems to sink to the mantle via cracks in one way or another, and then it is regenerated again in the form of water vapor, H2O, via volcanoes and cracks in the earth's mantle.

 

9. The Size and Nature of the Second Sun

The size of the current sun compared to Earth is about (1.3 million to 1). But this size includes the flame. Without the flame, nobody knows how big the solid (or molten) body of the sun is.

From the leftover materials in the asteroid belt and the amount of rocks and metals that have been delivered to the planets, we can see that the second sun had too much resource for the Earth and for the other planets in the solar system.

In this section we will see that the second sun, in its final period of age, that could have lasted millions of years, has injected some kind of energy into the earth and tore it apart, creating open areas and trenches in the crust, all the way down to the mantle. And via these open areas and trenches, asteroids and meteoroids from the second sun have gone into the earth's mantle, caused the earth to expand, and mountains to rise.

The picture on the right shows the main parts of the earth's layers.

The oceanic crust, which is also the base of the continental crust, is made of basalt rock mainly.

Basalt is a rock that is rich in iron and magnesium. And because of the presence of these two minerals inside the rock, it is also called Mafic. The term Mafic is derived from Ma for magnesium and Fic from the Latin word Ferro, which means iron. Mafic is any rock that contains iron and magnesium.

The number of layers below the mantle and their contents are not known for certain, but to avoid any confusion, we let them be two layers, just like the common presentation. In this article we deal with the crust and the mantle only.

If the metallic materials are not originally from the earth, is there a way to put them inside the mantle, other than opening an area in the crust, with a depth that reaches the mantle, and then place them there?

The knowledge about stars is still very limited, and if we put the dead sun in a certain class, we may end up in conflict with the known or assumed functions of stars in that class. For example, if we classify the dead sun as a white dwarf star, a remnant of a star once was like our sun, some might say that white dwarfs are not known to have this or that function. Now there is a big difference between «are not known to have, or thought to have» and «they do not have». Most of the available information about stars is the type of «thought to have» or «believed to be», and the facts are extremely limited.

For example, the sun of the solar system is classified as a white dwarf star. Based on this classification, it is supposed to vanish without doing anything at all. Now this assumption is challenged. A star that has been classified as a white dwarf was found acting totally different from the common assumption, QUOTE: "New observations from Suzaku, a joint Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) and NASA X-ray observatory, have challenged scientists’ conventional understanding of white dwarfs. Observers had believed white dwarfs were inert stellar corpses that slowly cool and fade away, but the new data tell a completely different story. At least one white dwarf, known as AE Aquarii, emits pulses of high-energy (hard) X-rays as it whirls around on its axis. 'We’re seeing behavior like the pulsar in the Crab Nebula, but we’re seeing it in a white dwarf,' says Koji Mukai of NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. The Crab Nebula is the shattered remnant of a massive star that ended its life in a supernova explosion. This is the first time such pulsar-like behavior has ever been observed in a white dwarf."
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2007/whitedwarf_pulsar.html

Many of the adopted theories are based on assumptions rather than physical evidence that can be seen and evaluated. If we rely on such theories, we will not end up anywhere. For example, in a previous section we concluded that the metallic elements, along with their containing rocks, must have arrived together from the second sun. But there is no theory supports this kind of conclusion. On the other hand, it is agreed that metallic elements can be made only in stars! Now it is not a matter of whether or not there is a theory to support the arrival of metals with their containing rocks together, but the natural explanation says so. If metals can be made only in stars, then the containers of metals must have also come from the same place where the metals are made. No third party is involved in this process. Another question arises, when do stars eject their metals in large volumes: when they are functioning and shining normally, or when they are dying? From the rust on Mars we can tell that this happens when they are dying. In addition, our sun is not throwing out any solid material; no stars in space have been found ejecting solid materials. Even if the solid materials themselves want to leave active stars, the gravitational force of these stars will not let them go, or the nuclear fusion will burn them. If this is the case, then how is it possible for planets to get metallic elements from stars? The only possible time for this to happen is when the stars are dying.

 Supernova Explosion
After Explosion Before Explosion
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l2/supernovae.html

According to the current classification of stars, white dwarfs should be composed of hydrogen and helium that slowly cool and fade away. 90% of stars in space are categorized as white dwarfs. The remaining 10% are neutron stars that explode as supernova. The supernova explosion is so huge to the point that you can see it very clearly even with the naked eye. Based on these two categories, we conclude that no solid material whatsoever can be found in dead stars. A nuclear explosion in the size of supernova will not even leave a grain of dust to remain intact. And white dwarfs are only condensed gases. However, on the link below, over 100 dying stars, categorized as white dwarfs, have been found polluted with planetary debris such as rocks and metals. The assumed sources of planet debris around these dead stars are nearby planets. A research team is trying to find any of the assumed sources. But not a single planet has been found near these dead stars so far!
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/science/hyades-dwarf.html

The natural explanation is to say that the supposed planet debris have actually come out of the original stars after they have broken apart. It is like seeing a collapsed building; you don't need anyone to tell you that the junk you are seeing is the materials that were making up the building. But if you limit your conclusion to two options, then you have to pick one of these two options only, even if the selected option doesn't make sense at all. Saying so however doesn't mean no stars end up their lives as condensed gases that vanish slowly, but to limit all stars in space to two categories is a problem.

Therefore, instead of classifying the dead sun in a certain category, we better look at the functions it most likely had. And then we look and see whether these functions are found in any of the currently existing stars.

It seems that the second is very similar to, if not the same as, these dead stars that are polluted with the so-called planetary debris, and of course the source of the debris is the dead stars themselves.

The dead sun must have emitted neutron and gamma rays that were capable of penetrating the earth's crust. This function is found now in pulsars and generally in all or most of neutron stars; plus the white dwarf mentioned above. It is sufficient to find this function in some kinds of stars, regardless whether the dead sun ended up as a pulsar, white dwarf, or anything else.

Pulsars, neutron, and white dwarfs are dying stars, but originally they were normal stars just like the Sun.


Gamma Ray Burst

Gamma ray is very penetrating. Even machine-made gamma ray can penetrate, for a certain degree, through lead.

When these rays pass through matter, they eject electrons from the atoms they strike. This process is called ionization. It is an action-reaction chemical process that can create new substances and compounds, which can lead to an increase in volume and/or pressure.

Ionization processes can interact with gas, liquid or maybe other matters, but the affected matter inside the mantle, by neutron or gamma ray strikes, is very likely a gas. The reason for saying gases and not liquid or anything else is that the earth's mantle has exploded. And there is nothing is known to come out of the earth's mantle via volcanoes that can cause explosions other than gases. If there is anything else inside the earth's mantle, in addition to gases, that can cause explosions, some signs of it would have shown up. But since nothing other than the gases has shown up, we have to limit our conclusions to what can be seen, at least for the time being.

We have to say now that the chemical reactions that have taken place inside the mantle, when the earth was struck with neutron and gamma rays, caused a great increase in gas pressure, inside the mantle, that led the mantle to explode and the crust to break, in order to release the extra gas pressure. The explosions that have taken place inside the mantle created very big holes and trenches in the crust, going all the way down to the mantle.

One last point worth mentioning, is there a way to find physical evidence that supports, beyond any doubt, the presence of a second sun in the main asteroid belt in the past?

There is a metal (iron) asteroid in the main asteroid belt, orbiting almost in the middle of the belt, called, Psyche. It has a diameter of about 200 km. NASA may send a mission to asteroid Psyche in the future, but no date has been set.

Some think it is an inner core of a planet that has never formed. Others are waiting to see what it is going to be. QUOTE: "But here's the thing: we don't know what we're going to see," says Elkins-Tanton. "We've seen rock worlds and ice worlds and gas worlds, but we've never visited a metal world. We have no idea what it will look like. We only know we're going to be surprised."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24793-astrophile-heavy-metal-asteroid-is-a-spacecraft-magnet.html

Now we cannot run into a conclusion and say, that is the inner core of the second sun! It all depends on how the space craft is going to test this object. If it is tested to see whether it is part of a star, the object might reveal something about this point. But if they completely rule out any relation this object might have with stars, then they will get the result that they want. It is like a doctor testing the blood of a patient. If the doctor doesn't check for a particular virus in the blood, the virus will not say I am here come and find me. So, for the time being we cannot say much about the asteroid Psyche.

 

10. Expansion in All Inner Planets

All inner, terrestrial, planets have lowlands and highlands. All lowlands are smooth and made mainly of molten basaltic rocks. All lowlands are younger than highlands!


Lava flow; magma equivalent

The oceanic crust is the lowland of the Earth, and its thickness is about 5 to 10 km. The continental crust is much older, and its thickness is about 30 to 50 km.

We have seen in the previous section that the earth curst opened up in some areas, making very big holes and trenches, in order to release the extra gas pressure.

Gravity at low altitudes is more than gravity at high altitudes. For example, suppose that you have a magnet covered with a very thick barrier; with the barrier, the magnetic force is weak; without the barrier, the magnetic force is much stronger.

After opening the crust, the strongest gravity on the earth must have been at the open areas.

Rocks and metals that have left the second sun came to orbit the planets, as meteors and asteroids. When they come in parallel with the open areas, where the gravitational pull is high, they are pulled to these areas, going directly to the mantle. However, the falling rocks are not breaking. They fall in slow motion, because the overall gravity of the earth at that time was much weaker than today.

Falling rocks are melted inside the mantle. The mantle became full of rocks. After filling the mantle, the earth started to expand, creating a magma (molten rock) layer, and continued to expand until rocks from the sky stopped falling.

Cracked Surface, Faults -- a countless number of cracks must have taken place all over this new solid layer. These cracks are the same as the ones that are called 'Faults' by the tectonic theory. The exact number of these cracks is unknown, and the way they were created is random.

Any solid and closed container is subject to cracks due to temperature changes. Temperatures in the earth's interior are much higher than temperatures above the crust. The result is cracks everywhere. Some are short cracks, and some others are long ones. Cracks are a must for the mantle to breath. The gases inside the mantle must circulate to prevent the mantle from explosion.

The above map of Mars shows some of the planet's lowlands and highlands. You can see on the scale below the map that the lowlands are lower up to 8km (-8000). Like the seafloor on the Earth, the lowlands on Mars are made mainly of molten basaltic rocks.

It can also be seen on the map above that the number of impact craters on the lowlands is much less than the highlands. This is a clear indication that the lowlands are much younger than the highlands. In other words, the lowlands were created at a very late time.

There is very dark and rounded lowland on the map above. This could be a hole in the crust of Mars that was created when the crust exploded to release the excess pressure. Similar to this hole can be found on the moon too. It is possible the earth had like these holes initially, but because the structure of the earth has changed dramatically since then, finding them now is very difficult.

Some ancient cultures called the dark areas on the moon "seas," assuming there is water on the moon. This assumption is proven incorrect, and there are no seas on the moon. However, these dark areas are still called lunar maria. In Latin, maria is the plural of mare, and means seas.

These dark areas on the moon are not at the same level as the so-called highlands. And just like the seafloor on Earth, and the lowlands on Mars, the moon's lowlands are also made of molten basaltic rocks!

Venus is very close to the sun, the temperature there is very high, about 460°C, and its atmosphere is very thick, so that the surface of the planet cannot be seen. However, radar images show that Venus has lowlands and highlands. About 80% of Venus is lowland.

QUOTE: "It is hypothesized that Venus underwent some sort of global resurfacing about 300–500 million years ago, though no Venusian rock has ever been dated. One possible explanation for this event is that it is part of a cyclic process on Venus. On Earth, plate tectonics allows heat to escape from the mantle. However, Venus has no evidence of plate tectonics, so this theory states that the interior of the planet heats up (due to the decay of radioactive elements) until material in the mantle is hot enough to force its way to the surface."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_Venus

Because the lowlands on Venus are much younger than the highlands, they have been dated between 300 – 500 million years. But this is conjecture. Those who have given this date, they could easily date them 200 – 300 million years, as old as the sea floor on the Earth.

Mercury is the closest planet to the sun. Its size is about the size of the moon. And just like the other inner planets, it does have lowlands and highlands.

The only difference between the earth's lowlands and the lowlands on the other planets is that the lowlands on the Earth are filled with salty water, oceans, while the others are still empty.

The age of the seafloor on the earth is estimated to be about 200 million years old, compared to the earth's highland which is about 4.6 billion years old. The given explanation by the tectonic theory for this very young age of the seafloor is that the seafloor is being recycled every 200 million years! And of course, there is no evidence to support this idea. In order to assume the recycling of the sea floor, a non-recycled part must exist for comparison, but nothing is there. In addition, the base layer of the continental crust is the same layer that extends to make the sea floor. Is this one also being recycled, and how?!

However, as we will see later, some parts of the sea floor do recycle, but not in the same way as assumed by the tectonic theory.

The explanation for the lowlands on the moon, as well as Mercury, is that impacts of heavy meteorites have pushed the crust down, and then lava flowed on these lowered surfaces. But the source of the supposed lava flow on these surfaces hasn't been found yet! No traces of any large volcanoes are found anywhere on the moon that can produce such large areas of lowlands.

Unlike the moon and Mercury, Venus does not have large impact craters on its surface, nor has oceans and tectonic activities to recycle the seafloor every 200 million years, but it does have lowlands and highlands!

The estimated age of the lowlands on the moon is about 3.5 "billion" years, while the highlands, like the earth, is about 4.6 billion years. However, this age estimate seems very much exaggerated.

It seems that those who have done the radiometric test on the moon's rocks have ruled out rocks with small numbers of years, in one way or another, and tried to push the date back as much as possible, so that the numbers appear reasonable to them, based on their assumption that the lowlands were caused by large impact craters; and the craters on the highlands, most likely, were found very old, about 3.5 billion years. As a result, they have concluded that the lowlands must have the same age as the craters, the assumed cause! The other possibility is that radiometric dating is not suitable for dating rocks outside the Earth, because the environment on other planets is not the same as on the Earth.

Another technique of estimating the age of a surface is by counting the impact craters on the surface; the greater the crater density, the older the terrain. The crater counting technique gives the lowlands of the moon a very different age. QUOTE: "Lunar maria (lowlands) have only 1/20 the crater density of the lunar highlands, therefore, they should be 1/20 the age, right? So, by this reasoning, if the highlands were 4.5 billion years old, as old as the Earth, then the maria would be just 200 million years old."
http://www.coursehero.com/file/2091918/Lecture12-Moon/

As you can see in the quote above, the crater counting technique gives the lowlands of the moon an age of about 200 million years only, as old as the ocean floor on the earth!

Visually the moon's lowlands look much younger than the highlands. So something must have gone wrong with the radiometric dating technique to give very old ages for areas that look very, very new.

Many have suggested that the moon was a planet, orbiting the sun in its own orbit. And then, for some unknown reason, it was captured by the Earth. This assumption is very likely correct, because the moon has lowlands, highlands and mountains, just like the other inner planets, including Mercury, which has the same size as the moon.

It is possible that the moon was orbiting the sun between the Earth and Venus, or between the Earth and Mars. In either case, it was closer to the Earth.

The added rocks and metals to the Earth must have increased the mass of the Earth, which has led to the increase of its gravity. After the gravity of the Earth increased, it has captured the moon.

 

11. Earth has Expanded and Continents are Drifting!

The fact is that there are "few" parts of the continental crust, have been shaped in such a way, so that if they are pushed side by side they would fit together.

On the other hand, there are theories. But theories are not facts. They can be right or wrong. Any theory is just a thought trying to explain a fact, when the real cause of the fact is unknown.

The dominant theory for explaining the earth shaping is the Plate Tectonics, also called the Continental Drift. Another less famous theory is the Expanding Earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_Earth

The tectonic theory states that the continents before 200 million years were in one single land sitting in a very vast ocean. And then these land chunks started to move, without any reason, and without any defined dynamic process! And because no reason is given for their movements, they are called, sometimes, wandering plates.

Some have attributed the continental movements to ocean ridges.

It is true the land chunks are separated at ocean ridges, but according to the tectonic theory, the ocean floor has existed since the beginning; formed together with the continental crust at the same time, and it is being recycled every 200 million years. If this is the case, why have not ocean ridges forced the continental plates to move in previous rotations?!

Therefore we have a problem with the assumption that says the continents are being moved apart by ocean ridges, unless we accept that the entire ocean floor did not exist at all before 200 million years. Otherwise there is no difference between ocean ridges that are found today, and ocean ridges that are supposed to have existed before. And if the current ocean ridges are forcing the continents to drift, the previous ridges must have done the same, if they have ever existed!

Another major problem with the tectonic theory is that it views the world map from the Atlantic Ocean only, neglecting the Pacific, because the theory does not have an explanation for the matching edges on the pacific.

There are parts on the map, if they are viewed from the other side, they will fit perfectly on the Pacific too!

The expanding (continuously expanding) earth theory is more reasonable, because it deals with the map from all angles.

However, neither the Expanding Earth theory has an answer for why the earth is expanding, nor the Tectonic theory has an answer for why the so-called plates sat stationary for a very long time and then started to move all of a sudden.

Regarding the Expanding Earth theory, the earth is not expanding, it has just expanded once. And now it is shrinking!

It is claimed that the tectonic plates have moved initially "billions" of years ago, and then stopped and came together, and finally started to move again 200 millions years ago. The second move is acceptable, but the one that is supposed to have happened billions of years ago has no basis. One reason for rejecting this assumption is that mountain formation is attributed by the tectonic theory to plate collision, and if these plates have indeed moved, they would have created mountains, because they moved away from each other, and then they came back and collided with each other. As a result of this collision, according to the tectonic theory, a mountain should have been formed. But there is no rocky mountain older than 200 million years!

The fact that cannot be missed is that neither ocean floor existed nor continents have ever moved before 200 million years.

If we take everything related to the earth structure into account, not ignoring anything, we have to say the earth has expanded, and the continents are drifting. In other words, the Expanding Earth theory and the Continental Drift theory are both correct in certain aspects.

By looking at the mid-ocean ridge of the Atlantic, it can be seen clearly that the continents on both sides of the Atlantic are being pushed away from each other. The red color represents the newest seafloor. The yellow areas are older than the red, and so on. The green seafloor is about 150 million years old.
http://sos.noaa.gov/Datasets/dataset.php?id=119

Antarctica is another example of the continental drift. It is surrounded by ridges from all sides. No trenches are found inside the circle of ridges of Antarctica.

The continents did not sit stationary for a long period of time, and all of a sudden started to move without any reason. The expansion of the earth, and the water that filled ocean basins, as we will see in the next section, are the reasons behind the drift of the land chunks.

Next we will see that there are parts of the world do fit together from the Pacific Ocean.

 

From the map above, which is the Pacific Ocean centered, the shape in the picture on the right was produced.

Very simple turning of the colored areas, and without any artwork, we have something on the other side of the map that fits perfectly.

It is true that the parts that fit together from the other side are more, but not all of them do fit. The Mediterranean Sea doesn't fit, the Black Sea doesn't fit, the Gulf of Mexico doesn't fit, and many other areas do not fit.

The point is that we are not dealing with something that works according to a systematic natural law, but with an accident! Therefore, we should not expect, for example, a car accident to dismantle the car very nicely! Some parts may remain in a good condition, but not all.

The Atlantic, as we will see later, has resulted from a crack in the basaltic layer at a late time, whereas the Pacific resulted from the initial explosion in the earth's crust, when the internal gas pressure exceeded the maximum limit. This fundamental difference in the way the two areas were separated produced completely different results.

At one period of time, the Pacific Ocean was small, just as it is shown in the picture above. Later on, the brown area was pushed away. And at a very late time, Australia separated.

Fossil discoveries prove Australia and South America were connected together at least 50 million years ago. QUOTE: "The first evidence we have of marsupials [animals like kangaroo] in Australia comes from the 55 million-year-old fossil site at Murgon in southern Queensland. This Murgon site has yielded a range of marsupial fossils, many with strong South American connections. At Murgon there is also evidence of a placental mammal, known as a condylarth. Placental mammals were also found in North America and South America at this time."
http://australia.gov.au/about-australia/australian-story/australias-fossil-past

This fossil discovery is a shortcut for knowing that Australia was attached to South America at some period of the earth's history.

It is assumed that these animals have reached Australia from the other side. If we look carefully at this assumption, we can see that it is not the case, because marsupials are "terrestrial" animals, and in order for them to reach Australia from the other side, they have to cross the Atlantic Ocean, which is impossible. The green color areas on both sides of the Atlantic are about 150 million years old, whereas the fossil age is about 55 million years only. So how is it possible for these animals to cross the Atlantic and reach Australia from the other side?

The map above also shows that the Pacific kept expanding for a very long period of time, until it arrived at its current size, and then stopped. Now it is shrinking. When the Pacific started to shrink, ocean trenches were created.

Ocean trenches and ridges were created in the Earth's lowland because the lowland on Earth was filled with water, and the Earth is trying to balance the amount of water on its surface.

At the time of the initial explosion, and while the earth was expanding, many parts of the continental crust have been mixed with the basaltic layer of the upper mantle. These parts are completely lost and cannot be retrieved. Therefore, any effort to reconstruct the original map of the earth will not succeed.

The evidence that shows that some parts of the crust rock have become part of the basaltic layer is the granite rocks that are found in ocean floor. Since granite is a foreigner to ocean floor, its presence there is very limited. This indicates that these granite layers were inserted, in one way or another, in an area where they are not supposed to be.

Granitic Seafloor Reported Off Brazil
http://geology.about.com/b/2013/05/08/granitic-seafloor-reported-off-brazil.htm

Not much information is available about the granite seafloor that is found in Brazil, but it seems that during the initial explosions, a part of the continental crust was lowered down in the mantle, and then basalt rock that makes ocean floor built around it. Later on, it was drifted by the newly forming ocean floor. When water filled ocean basins, the upper soft layer from the crust, which was covering the granite sea floor, scattered by water. The remaining granite surface became part of the ocean floor, far in a deep sea, covered by water.

It is very likely that there are many ocean floors similar to the one found in Brazil, but waiting to be discovered. It is also possible that the shaping of the edges of these granite seafloors, if they are still intact, would match corresponding edges in the continental crust, so that if they are pushed side-by-side, they would fit together!

 

12. The Effect of Water on the Earth's Lowland

Now if we compare Mars to Earth 200 million years ago, we find in both planets the lowlands on one side and the highlands on the other side. Land chunks on Earth have changed position, but on Mars they remained in the same place where they were initially! The main difference between the two planets is water.

Based on what is seen on Mars and other planets, it is very likely the earth's lowland was flat in the beginning, without ridges and trenches. But just like winds and rain change the surface features of the continental crust, the sea water also changes the surface features of the oceanic crust.

After rocks stopped falling, and the earth cooled down, and everything else on the earth has settled down, water started filling ocean floor from rivers and volcanic gases that form clouds and then rain.

Since the mantle was full of rocks, the earth might not have stopped expanding immediately after rocks stopped falling. But finally it stopped, at a very late time, when it came to a point where it cannot expand anymore.


Mid Atlantic Ocean Ridge (USGS)

Gases released from the earth's interior created clouds in the sky, which have produced rain that put weight on ocean floor.

This shift of energy, from the interior of the earth to the surface of the earth, must have caused a problem for the Earth stability.

The earth adjusted itself with the new situation by introducing ocean ridges and trenches. Expanding at the ridges and shrinking at the trenches.

The cracked solid, or basaltic, layer of the Earth allowed ridges and trenches to form.

The only difference between the Earth and the other planets is water. The water has played a major role in dividing and shaping the continental crust.

At ocean ridges, magma rises from inside the mantle and builds new ocean floor. At ocean trenches, parts of the ocean floor fall down inside the mantle. This process causes parts of the land to spread away at ocean ridges, and other parts to come closer to each other at ocean trenches.

When ocean basins were filled with a considerable amount of water, the earth tried to balance this water on its surface. It is like putting a weight on one side of a ball, and you see the air is being pushed to other sides.

In the beginning, the Atlantic Ocean was very narrow, while the Pacific was very big. Most of the weight was on the Pacific.

It seems that the Pacific Ocean is prevented from spreading further by the mountains that are found on the edges of the ocean. The presence of volcanoes along these mountains, on the so-called Ring of Fire, is an indication of lots of activities going on inside the mantle under these areas.

The Ring of Fire, which is a set of volcanoes located on the edges of the Pacific Ocean, contains over 450 volcanoes. Nearly 90% of the world's major earthquakes occur along the Ring of Fire. Most ocean trenches are found at the edges of the Pacific Ocean.
http://www.worldatlas.com/aatlas/infopage/ringfire.htm

With the exception of sandstone mountains, all rocky mountains have their bases connected directly to the basaltic layer, as we will see later.

Whenever the seafloor of the Pacific tries to spread farther, it hits mountains, or the basaltic layer that is connected to these mountains, and that causes earthquakes almost everyday.

But these earthquakes that occur on daily basis are considered normal, and usually they do not cause any damages.

On the other hand, the Atlantic Ocean is able to spread, because the spreading force there seems to be stronger! Now this statement should be acceptable even if the dynamic process behind it is not known exactly. It should be acceptable because it is actually happening now. Maybe because the Pacific is carrying a lot of weight on its surface and it has to push against mountains, whereas the Atlantic does not have these obstacles.

At ocean trenches, parts of the ocean floor are melted and fallen down inside the mantle. The mantle compensate for these fallen parts at the ridges in other places. The other places can be anywhere, and not limited to the Atlantic Ocean only. This process causes some places to expand at the ridges, and other places to shrink at the trenches.

The presence of ridges and trenches in oceans led to the development of a theory called Seafloor Spreading. This theory doesn't seem to be correct, because the shrinking ratio at ocean trenches is not the same as the spreading ratio at ocean ridges.

The scientific terms introduced by the Seafloor Spreading theory, such as Lithosphere and Asthenosphere, are just imaginary assumptions. There is no physical evidence to support their existence.

After countless changes in the Earth structure, the Earth now is shrinking!

QUOTE: "Sea level is rising — and at an accelerating rate — especially along the U.S. East Coast and Gulf of Mexico -- Global average sea level rose roughly eight inches from 1880 - 2009."
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/impacts/causes-of-sea-level-rise.html

The link above attributes the increase in sea level to the rise in atmospheric temperature.

Another explanation: the earth is still adjusting itself since the time of ocean floor formation, millions of years ago. The ocean floor is shrinking at the trenches at a higher rate than spreading at the ridges. Whenever any ocean basin shrinks, the sea level rises. This means that the overall size of the earth is getting smaller very slightly every year. In other words, the earth is shrinking.

There is also a Shrinking Earth theory, but it is based on a completely different idea, and it has no relation at all to what we have in here.

 

13. How Are Mountains Formed?

One of the greatest mysteries that are found on the Earth is mountains. Many theories to explain mountain formation have been put forward over the last 100 years or so, but it doesn't seem that the theories that have been formulated so far are convincing everyone. For this reason, new theories for mountain formation are still showing up from time to time.

Mountain formation is represented sometimes by two arrows opposite to each other and a single block in the middle, to mean that the arrows or plates pushed the block up.

The reality however is different, most mountains are not made of a single block or they are in a straight line.

It is said that mountain rocks on the earth have come from underground. And before they were pushed up, they are assumed to have been created underground.


Rocks on Mars

But on the planet Mars, rocks that look exactly the same as mountain rocks on the earth are found on the surface! Not only the ones that are shown in this picture, but all over the planet.

The assumed source of rocks on Mars is volcanoes that are supposed to have existed all over the planet "billions" of years ago! Needless to say that there is no evidence to prove that Mars ever had volcanoes all over it. In addition, volcanic rocks on the earth do not look like the rocks that are found on the surface of Mars!

In this section we will see some ideas about the formation of rocky mountains, specifically the ones that are called Fold-Mountains by the tectonic theory, which make up most mountains on the earth. The presented ideas could be right, wrong, or in between. But even if they are completely wrong, the continental drift has nothing to do with the formation of mountains. It is something like a question with two answers, if one answer turned out wrong, the other answer doesn't have to be correct. This is not a multiple choice question!

Some mountains look brown or dark brown, this is because of weathering effect, but if we look at a broken rock, we will see it very dark inside. These dark rocks are called Mafic, Ultramafic, or basaltic, because they are rich in iron and magnesium. As mentioned earlier, the term Mafic is derived from Ma for magnesium and Fic from the Latin word Ferro, which means iron.

Of course, not all rocky mountains have the exact same amount of iron and magnesium. In fact, it is almost impossible to find two rocks, cemented together, have the exact same amount of minerals. This is due to chemical exchange. The same rule is applied to ocean floor; not all parts of ocean floor have the same amount of minerals.

Over the millions of years that have passed since the mountain building process, the chemical exchange has played a major role in transferring minerals from one object to another. Iron now can be found almost everywhere, even in your blood, fish, animals, trees, etc. But the concentration of the base metallic elements is still more in mountain rocks and sea floor than any other material, because they are the source.

Even though mountains look solid or molded blocks, they are made of separate rocks, stacked together and cemented with some of the continental curst materials, mainly solidified sand and mud. Some of these rocks sometimes fall down from mountain tops. This is an indication that mountains are made of separate rocks cemented together, when the cement loses its strength, the rocks fall.


Himalaya Mountains

By looking at the way these mountains are laid, it seems that they were built along cracks in the continental crust, in a very similar manner as the Atlantic Ocean and other seas.

The tectonic theory calls these cracks, plate boundaries. It says that when continental plates collided with each other along these boundaries, they have pushed rocks that form mountains up. In contradiction to this assumption, there are cracks, or boundaries, but without mountains!

It seems that the difference between cracks where mountains are built, and cracks where seas were created, is the timing. The cracks of mountains formed trenches in the continental crust at the same time when the earth was receiving rocks from the sky, whereas the cracks in ocean floor were stretched after water filled ocean basins.

At the time when rocks were falling from the sky, they fell either in trenches or on ocean floor, because of the higher gravity at these places. The base layer of ocean floor is much larger than the base layer of trenches. Therefore it took ocean floor much more time to build thickness and solidify. Since the base layer of trenches is much smaller, it solidified much faster. Any rock had fallen on ocean floor has broken through or melted, whereas rocks that had fallen in trenches have stacked up.

The above picture of Mars shows that some of the fallen rocks were stacking together. The reason for these rocks to come together and then stack up is that they contain magnetism. Each rock is attracted by the one preceding it while they are coming down. On the earth, all rocky mountains have magnetism at various degrees. It is very likely magnetism in mountain rocks was much stronger in the past than it is today.

The presence of earth materials with mountain rocks indicates that they were mixed and heated together with moisture, but not heated to the melting point. This mixture may have been done in different ways. One way is by wind, like the picture above, but inside trenches. The wind blows on the surface of the earth and causes sand and dust from the top of the surface to fall inside trenches and between rocks. Another way is rain; the rain falls and drives sand and mud into trenches.

As said earlier, rocks fall inside trenches and not anywhere else because of gravity. In the beginning, trenches were open to the mantle, and because of this opening, the trenches had more magnet than areas covered by the continental crust. For this reason, the falling rocks were attracted by the mantle under the trenches. But after some rocks sealed the trenches, new rocks were attracted by the older rocks that are already inside the trenches.

Since mountains have grown initially from trenches that were open to the mantle, or partially open to the mantle, we have to conclude that mountains are connected directly to the mantle layer that is made of basalt rock, at least at some points along each mountain range where trenches were completely open to the mantle. Since mountains have their roots connected directly to the mantle, volcanoes are found mainly in mountainous areas. If there is a barrier between mountain bases and the mantle, that barrier plus the weight of mountains would block volcanoes. These volcanoes must have existed in the areas where they are now since the time when mountains were forming.

Rocks on Pothole dome: an example of rocks that have fallen from the sky!

QUOTE: "We are standing on Pothole dome in Tuolumne meadows... These gigantic boulders are sitting on a bare surface of rock. However, there is no apparent source, or mountain that they could have fallen down from!"
http://www.foothill.edu/fac/klenkeit/virtual/glacial/observations5.php

Not much geological information available on the Internet about Pothole dome, so we cannot say much about it. However, it looks like it is an uplifted area created by a rising magma. At a later time, when the surface was raised to a very high altitude, far away from the mantle heat, new rocks were attracted by magnetism in this dome, and fallen there. No information is found about magnetism in Pothole dome. But even if there is no magnetism in the dome now, that doesn't mean it has never been there.

Even though the rocks that are shown in the picture above are few, they prove that they are not made underground as a result of a collision between continental plates, forcing the creation of rocks. It is a clear indication of a late arrival; rocks that have fallen from the sky at a late time.

What saved rocks from breaking after falling down is the low gravity of the earth at that time. As mentioned earlier, because of the smaller mass of the earth, the earth gravity in the past was much less than today. As a result, rocks fall down in slow motion!

We have already seen the row of rocks in the picture of Mars. Despite those rocks were covered by sand, the sand did not glue them! There must were other factors involved in the process.

The other factors are moisture and heat. The heat caused the different materials, sand, dust, rocks, and water, to release chemicals that make up very strong cement. The heat and water vapor were coming from the mantle, whereas the sand and dust were from the continental crust.


Hot spring located at 4.5 km above sea level
http://www.hotelclub.com/blog/top-10-hot-springs-destinations/

Most hot springs around the world are found in mountainous areas! The spring shown in this picture is located at a very high altitude, about 4.5 km above sea level.

The heat that makes these springs hot is coming from the mantle. In fact, it looks like the water itself is coming from the mantle too!

It seems that the very hot water vapor, H2O, that is coming from the mantle, which is the same as the water vapor that is produced by volcanoes, condensates into water liquid after making contact with colder mountain rocks. And this water liquid makes hot springs.

Hot springs that are found in volcanic areas are extremely hot, with temperatures at, or near, the boiling point. The presence of hot springs and volcanoes side-by-side indicates that they are coming from the same source, the earth's mantle.

It is very likely that steam like the one coming from hot springs existed in the past in all areas where mountains are found now. This hot steam, plus other Earth materials, these together, formed the strong cement that glued mountain rocks.

The apparent reason for water vapor that makes hot springs to exist until this day is unsealed spaces in mountain structure.

Based on what we have seen so far, the stacking rocks on Mars, Pothole dome, and others, it is very likely that mountains formed in a way similar to the simplified block diagram above.

The rocks that have fallen first were fully melted, forming a near flat surface. Magma from the mantle raised the melted surface up. The rocks that followed stacked together, but not melted because of the increase in distance between the new rocks and the mantle. They formed a mountain hill. Later on, the rising magma kept pushing the whole block up.

Each group of fallen rocks could be like this row of rocks shown in this picture of Mars. A little here and some little there, and over a very long period of time, mountains started to make the shape that they have now.

Since the amount of fallen rocks is not the same all the time, mountain hills are not of the same height.

Not only the height is different, but also the directions of these hills are not the same. Some hills are going, for example, east-west, others north-south, and so on.

Because of the strong cement that glues mountain rocks together, we have to assume that these mountains remained in their trenches, below the surface of the earth, for a very long period of time, could be for millions of years.

While mountains were taking shape inside their trenches, high pressure magma from the earth's mantle kept pushing these mountains up, at various rates. Some mountains were pushed up very fast, others much slower, and some others may still under ground, but covered with sandstone. The different rising rates are due to the way the earth is adjusting itself with the new situation. Because of the different rates, some mountains on the earth are still rising, while others are not.


https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~ejchaisson/cosmic_evolution/docs/fr_1/fr_1_plan5.html

In some places, scratches on the surface of mountain hills are found. They look as they have been squeezed before they were pushed up. This could happen if their trenches were narrowed after mountain hills have already taken shape and solidified while they were below the surface of the earth. Narrowing of trenches could happen if parts of the continental crust were pushed by ocean water.

It is written under the picture above that these mountains were raised about 70 million years ago. This is an indication that they have remained below the surface of the earth for a very long time, since the time of the formation of ocean floor until they were pushed up 70 million years ago.

The above shown mountain is categorized by the tectonic theory as a fold mountain.

According to the tectonic theory, Fold Mountains resulted from plate collisions. But how is it possible for two objects colliding with each other to form a solid hill with a thin head and a wide base underground?

Now we are not talking about one hill only, but a very large group of hills going in various directions and curves!

It is impossible to make a hill underground. The only place where you can create a hill is in an open area. Taking this point as a base, and by looking at the shapes and foundations of mountains, we see that the most reasonable explanation for mountain hills is to say that the rocks that make up the hills were dropped from top to bottom. And based on other information that we have viewed so far, we conclude that the hills have taken shape in open areas, inside trenches. Some of these trenches were narrowed at a later time. As a result of this narrowing, scratches appeared on mountain hills after they were pushed up.

There are also mountains on other planets but they are not called fold-mountains, because there are no signs of scratches on their hills! However, the building process, at least for some mountains on other planets, must be the same as on the earth. The apparent reason for no scratches is the absence of water to push the continental crust and narrow mountain trenches.

In spite of the absence of water on other planets, the presence of ancient volcanoes proves the presence of gases in other planet's mantles. These gases played the same rule for mountain formation as the rule performed by water vapor on the earth in cementing rocks together. Now we cannot say much about mountains on other planets because the available information about them is very, very limited.

In this section we have looked at some elements and factors that appear to be the way the so-called «fold-mountains» were formed. The presented mountain building stages can be easily demonstrated, and examples of these stages are found on the Earth, Mars, and probably other planets.

 

14. Earthquakes, Tsunamis and Volcanoes

Normal earthquakes that happen very frequently along fault lines are not the kind of events that draw attention of anyone, not even the attention of people who live in these zones. But when something unusual takes place, there must be something unusual behind it. The normal and abnormal events cannot be caused by the same factor.

The factor that caused the earth's mantle to explode in the first time must be the same factor that causes disasters on the Earth these days. That factor is the energy that causes chemical reactions and expansion in mantle's substances.

In the past, that energy was released by the second sun. Nowadays it is released by pulsar stars, or other neutron stars of the same family. In addition to the dangerous energies they emit, pulsars also generate frequencies in the range of human hearing, roughly between 20 Hz - 20 kHz. If this range of frequencies is converted to sound, it can be heard. The video on YouTube on the link under the opposite picture is an example of this conversion.

What makes the pulsar energy to go undetected is that the effect of this energy takes time to show up. Chemical reactions do not occur instantly. However, it might be possible that the pulsar sound, if studied properly, in correlation with other energies the pulsar emits, to be used as an early warning sign for earthquakes and many other natural disasters!

Next we will see some signs people have noticed before major earthquakes and similar disasters, and then we will try to make a conclusion and present ways for forecasting these disasters.
 

Changes in Atmosphere

For centuries people have noticed changes in the atmosphere some time before major earthquakes.

The atmosphere above the epicenter of the March 2011 earthquake in Japan underwent unusual changes in the days leading up to the disaster.

Scientists from Japan and other countries in the Far East have collected data for 100 earthquakes. They have noticed changes in the atmosphere before any quake with magnitudes greater than 5.5. The changes were detected in the ionosphere; a layer in the atmosphere that starts at 80 km above the surface of the earth, and extends up to 600 km.

In the ionosphere, chemical particles are ionized by x-ray, UV, and shortwave radiation from the sun. Because of the ionization process that occurs over there, the layer is called, ionosphere. As said earlier, ionization is the process by which an atom or a molecule acquires a negative or positive charge by gaining or losing electrons.

Before the 2011 earthquake in Japan, Japanese scientists found more concentration of electrons and infrared radiation in the ionosphere. Many explanations have been given for the increased amount of electrons in the ionosphere, but none of them is unique to earthquakes. Therefore none of them has been taken as a sign of an incoming quake.

Japan Earthquake Was 'In the Air' Days Before, Scientist Claims
http://www.livescience.com/14221-earthquake-prediction-atmosphere.html

All of the current researches are concentrating on the earth as the cause of earthquakes, because there is always something coming out of the earth. However, if we think of the earth as a victim, we will also find something coming out of the earth. In other words, if the earth releases certain types of gases, or shows some abnormal behavior, that does not mean at all no external factors are involved. For example, if x-rays show earth cracks come close to, or spread away form, each other, it doesn't necessarily mean the cracks or the movements of plates are causing earthquakes. This is an indirect cause, but the real cause is different. It is like someone pushing a table, and the table pushed the chair and caused it to fall down.
 

Can Animals Sense Earthquakes?

Some animals sense earthquakes before they happen. QUOTE: "In 373 B.C., historians recorded that animals, including rats, snakes and weasels, deserted the Greek city of Helice in droves just days before a quake devastated the place. Accounts of similar animal anticipation of earthquakes have surfaced across the centuries since."
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/11/1111_031111_earthquakeanimals.html


Animals' Reaction to Electromagnetic Pulses
http://www.eqsigns.net/land_animals.html

Many have suggested that these animals sense the presence of some abnormal magnetic field. A few video clips on the link under the picture on the right show how animals behaved when they were exposed to electromagnetic pulses.

Even though the animals in the video clips reacted strangely to magnetic pulses, magnetism is unlikely the energy they sense to predict earthquakes.

The video clips show only a small group of animals. If a large group of different animals and birds are tested against magnetic pulses, will all of them show strange behavior? This is something we have to consider before making any conclusion.

The page on the link below and many other pages say all kinds of animals, birds, reptiles, and even insects can sense earthquakes!

Animals, birds and earthquake predictions?
http://kiwitravelwriter.wordpress.com/2011/03/03/animals-birds-earthquake-predictions/

It is very likely that these animals, birds, and insects, sense or smell gases, chemical composition!

Smell is the only communication language of insects and reptiles. Some birds and animals are also found having very strong smell sense. But who knows, maybe all creatures, other than humans, can communicate, in one way or another, via the sense of smell.

QUOTE: "Ants may have the ability to sense earthquakes before they hit according to observations presented at the European Geosciences Union annual meeting."
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-04/15/red-ants-earthquakes

The antenna on the top of ant's head is the sense organ of the ants. They use it to identify danger and finding food, and also to communicate with each other.

What we see here is that the sense of smell is the common factor among all creatures that can predict earthquakes.

When ionization of gases occurs inside the mantle, new gases are produced. One or more of these new gases, or gas mixtures, may signal a warning message for animals, birds, and insects, and force them to leave their homes to places where the signal completely disappears.

Some people have tried to use animal behavior as a precursor of earthquakes. But the animal behavior turned out a hit or miss! This is possible if the actual chemical reaction inside the mantle, and also the earthquake, is happening in a far place, tens of kilometers away from the city, in the sea for example, but its effect reaches the city and causes a disaster there.
 

Tsunamis and Earthquake Islands


Tsunami

Tsunami is a rise of sea water level. It is attributed to earthquakes happening under the sea that causes an uplift of a section of ocean floor.

Another possibility is ionized gases that are being released along major fault lines in the sea. These gases interact with sea water and create a high and long water wave.

Of course, the sudden release of gases can also create an earthquake. But the earthquake itself is not the cause of tsunamis. The reason for saying so is that earthquakes happen very frequently at ocean ridges but do not create the slightest rise in sea water waves.

Some other earthquakes cause islands to form. Below are two examples.


An earthquake hit Pakistan in September 2013 and pushed a mountain like island in the Arabian Sea. This island is interpreted as an ancient volcano.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/508930/20130925/pakistan-earthquake-baluchistan-new-island.htm


Volcanic eruption and an earthquake raised an island in the Red Sea in 2011

What can cause a piece of land to go up, other than a push, pressure, from the bottom?

If there is something being lifted up, there must be something else is lifting it from the bottom. Based on this simple logic and common sense, there is nothing we can see that can raise these islands, other than the gases that are also coming out of the nearby volcano, in the picture above.

Regarding the Pakistan earthquake, that island was also an ancient volcano!

In both cases, in Pakistan and the Red Sea, we find gases as the common factor.
 

Earthquake Lights


30 mins before the 2008 Sichuan earthquake in China
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKMTSDzU1Z4

The picture on the right is of a China earthquake. The sky has changed color in a far distant place. After 30 minutes, a quake struck in a different area.

Based on what is seen in this picture, these strange clouds seem to be rising from the ground. It is possible that the flow of the ionized gas particles has passed across a fault line and released gases there.

It seems that these gases interacted with air particles in the sky and formed new substances that look in color like rainbow. The ionized gas particles in the mantle continued to move forward until it reached a major fault line and caused a disaster there.

Saying these clouds are generated from the earth's interior, does not mean other sources are ruled out. We are making assumptions based on what is seen in the picture only. It is also possible, but it is less likely, that the air where these clouds are, has actually received a direct gamma or neutron ray strike, at the same time when it changed color. But the chemical reactions in the Earth's interior took a longer time to cause an earthquake.

These strange cloud colors are called Earthquake Lights. It is mentioned on the link below that the so-called earthquake lights "have been accompanied by low-frequency radio noise in the 10 to 20 kHz range. Earthquake lights have been seen weeks before or after earthquakes and hundreds of kilometers from the epicenter."
http://geology.about.com/od/earthquakes/a/EQlights.htm

The frequency range of (10 Hz to 20 kHz), mentioned in the quote above, as we have seen earlier, is the same range as the range of frequencies of pulsar stars. I have searched the web for a recording of this earthquake frequency, for the purpose of comparing it with pulsar tones, but unfortunately, I couldn't find any. However, even if a recording of this frequency does exist, it is unlikely to be as clear as the sound recording found on YouTube, because the recording must have been done on the Earth, and that frequency range cannot penetrate the Earth atmosphere without severe distortion. But if it is possible to filter out distortions and noise from the recording, a tone very close to the one available on YouTube might be recovered.

It is also mentioned in the quote above that these clouds have been seen sometimes "before" and sometimes "after" earthquakes, and hundreds of kilometers away from the epicenter. Well, this indicates that the cause of earthquakes may come sometimes from a distance, creates an earthquake somewhere and continues to move further! The picture of China earthquake shown earlier is an example of this phenomenon; the clouds changed colors in a distant area, but the earthquake took place somewhere else.

Neutron or pulsar stars can strike anywhere on the earth, but it seems that earthquakes occur only in the weakest place that is encountered first, depending on the direction of the flow of the ionized gases inside the mantle.
 

Volcanic and Earthquake Lightning


Volcanic Lightning

Volcanic Lightning is very similar to rain lightning. Both are created when an electrically charged region discharges suddenly into a negative region of air or the ground; or if two positive regions short circuit with each other.

There is also a phenomenon called, Earthquake Lightning. This is different from Earthquake Lights discussed earlier. QUOTE: "In some parts of the world, earthquakes are often accompanied by ball lightning, stroke lightning and sheet lightning."
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v228/n5273/abs/228759a0.html

The presence of charged, positively ionized, particles in volcanic gases and earthquakes proves an ionization process is happening inside the earth's mantle, before, during, and after, the time of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. The reason for ruling out the earth's crust as a source of these gases is volcanoes. Volcanoes are known for certain to come from the earth's mantle. So attributing volcanic and earthquake lightning to the earth's crust or anything else other than the earth's mantle doesn't seem to be the proper assumption.

In order for a lightning to occur, the electrical current must be very, very high, in tens of thousands of Amperes. This extremely high current cannot be produced by rock stress or friction. In the sky, lightning is happening in very thick and dark clouds. And for a lightning to happen in earthquake and volcanoes, very huge amount of gases must be energized. This can happen only in the source of volcanoes, the earth's mantle.
 

Earthquakes and Magnetic Field Fluctuations

Earthquake researchers in Japan and Taiwan have observed fluctuations in magnetic field on the surface of the earth, prior to, and at the time of, major earthquakes.
http://www.terrapub.co.jp/journals/EPS/pdf/2004/5601/56010039.pdf

Explanation: It is known that moving electrical current around metal creates magnetic field. The basaltic layer of the earth is rich in iron and magnesium. When positively charged gases (ionized gases) pass under this basaltic layer, they act as electrical current and create magnetic field, and this causes fluctuations in magnetic field on the surface of the earth.

The magnetic field created by the positively charged gases inside the mantle must be very, very strong, in order to cross the land crust and cause fluctuations on the surface of the earth. The crust can have a thickness that can reach up to 30km. When these charged gases come out of volcanoes, they create volcanic lightning, as discussed in the previous section.

In a similar phenomenon, "rain" lightning creates magnetic force of very great magnitude. Sometimes it causes fluctuations in electricity and introduces noise in electronic communications and radio channels. So it doesn't seem there is any difference between rain lightning and earthquake/volcanic lightning, or the magnetic field introduced by both.
 

Forecasting Earthquakes and Related Natural Disasters

We have seen in the previous paragraphs some signs and examples of earthquakes and the like. Every single sign and phenomenon must be taken into consideration before making any conclusion. The common factor for all the signs that have been presented in this section is the gas.

But where to watch for the ionization of gases? In the sky? Of course not. Not all animals are in the sky, but all of them sense earthquakes before they happen. The one and only one place that is known for releasing gases is the earth's mantle. Fortunately, we do not have to dig to the mantle in order to identify the gases available there. The mantle is releasing these gases via cracks (fault lines), and volcanic craters.

One way to test for the gas that acts as a warning message to animals is to take samples of volcanic gases and ionize them inside a laboratory with gamma or neutron ray, in the presence of animals, birds, reptiles, and insects. Gas sensors for all kinds of gases, and gas level indicators, have to be installed. Nerve instruments have to be mounted on the bodies of the animals under test. Experiments and good analysis of results should lead to the identification of the gas that acts as an earthquake sign.

Experimenting with ionization of volcanic gases and direct gamma or neutron ray strikes with air and very thin water vapor in order to produce earthquake lights, the lights that look like rainbow. However, this is a very difficult experiment to make, but it is very important, because it gives a visual result.

Even though magnetism is not the cause of earthquakes, and changes in the magnetic field will not make colors of clouds in the sky to look like rainbow, but it can be used as a sign. Moving ionized particles generate magnetic field. The presence and direction of magnetic pulses should be detectable by sensitive magnetic sensors. The data from these sensors will let people watching for earthquakes to know where the ionized gases are heading, at what speed, and on which major fault line they will strike. These magnetic sensors are to be used in conjunction with gas sensors, so that you know it is not a false indication.

Frequency meters for measuring and monitoring the range of frequencies from 10 Hz to 20 kHz are also required. The antennas of these meters/recorders should be mounted above mountains, in places where the noise level is very low. The result must be studied in correlation and comparison with pulsar frequencies.

The above ideas may not be sufficient for forecasting earthquakes accurately. But if they are taken as the basis, and tested properly, and the results are analyzed correctly, they should lead to new ideas, ways, and procedures, which will result in accurate forecasting of earthquakes and other natural disasters.

 

15. The End of Life on the Earth

The dead sun was from the same family that the current sun belongs to. They both were born together, grown together, and made from the same chemical composition. So it is expected that this sun, at some time in the future, before the end of its life, will start shooting gamma and neutron rays at the earth. However, unlike gamma rays that hit the earth nowadays from distant stars, the sun is a very near star. So the effect is devastating.

At that time, earthquakes of very huge magnitudes will take place everywhere. The earth will be torn apart. Pressure of gases inside the mantle will increase dramatically. That will cause the earth to expand and mountains to collapse.

Countless number of small islands, like the ones we have seen in the pictures of Pakistan and the Red Sea, will be formed.

Tsunamis will happen very frequently. Volcanoes will throw rocks of very huge sizes; destroying buildings, roads, and anything they hit. Those volcanoes will not be limited to the Ring of Fire only, but will cover the entire earth.

The second sun caused the so-called Great Dying, and the current sun will cause the same. It is the final extinction of life on the Earth. That is the END.

 

16. Conclusion

Many theories have been formulated to explain natural phenomena on Earth and Space. The high temperature of the early Earth is attributed to the presence of extra carbon in the Earth's atmosphere. The short day of the early Earth is attributed to fast rotation of the earth. Valuable and industrial metals are attributed to countless number of meteoroids hit the earth. The seafloor is said to be recycled every 200 million years. The source of rust on Mars is still a mystery. The lowlands on the other planets are another mystery. And the list goes on.

However, no traces of high carbon level on the earth are found, or signs of any abnormal rotation of the early earth. None of the given theories are supported by evidence that can be seen or evaluated.

The question now, if there was another sun and died out, wouldn't it produce all of these results? If the answer is yes, and it is, so there must was another sun in the sky. Its remains are still there and can be evaluated.

It may not be important for many people to know whether a second sun existed or not, but certainly everybody cares about earthquakes and other natural disasters. For this reason alone, the idea of the presence of a second sun must be taken seriously and studied properly.

Knowing what has happened in the past isn't only good information to have, but it also helps solving problems occurring today, and predicting the future.

The effect of the second sun, the night sun, on the earth in particular, and on the solar system in general, is a very large topic. We have only touched the surface. In-depth analysis and details are far to cover in few pages. But hopefully the main points presented in this article have given an overall idea of the role that the Night Sun has played.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2014  2sun.cc

www.2sun.cc