The Second Sun Report (Full)
 The Full Report in a Single Page  The Report by Parts

A study shows that there was a second sun (star) in the solar system used to orbit in the asteroid belt, between Mars and Jupiter, around 200 million years ago.

Graphical Summary

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

Initial Release: January 15, 2014
Last Updated: February 14, 2015

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

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 uranium and other radioactive materials?

Isn't it true that some dying stars produce iron oxide (rust)?

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 main asteroid belt. It was a very huge sun. Not smaller than the current sun, if not bigger.

When the second sun was functioning normally, it used to revolve around the main Sun in parallel with Earth; one sun sets, and the other sun immediately rises, from the same direction where the previous sun sets. There was no night! Scientists think the earth was rotating very fast. The earth was not rotating so fast, but this parallel orbit made the day seems very short.

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

Because the second sun was much hotter than the existing sun, it ran out of fuel much faster.



The abundance of igneous rocks on the surface of Mars is much greater than any other terrestrial planet. They look exactly the same as mountain rocks. These rocks have come from debris of the second sun.

 Supernova Explosion
After Explosion Before Explosion
  http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l2/supernovae.html
The current star theories divide stars into two categories only: stars that go supernova explosion (neutron stars), and stars that slowly cool down and fade away over time (white dwarf stars). We will see in the section about the Size and Nature of the Second Sun that this theoretical classification is incorrect. Many telescope observations have shown dying stars, that did not explode as supernova, classified as white dwarfs, but with rocks and metals! Basically the second sun did NOT explode as supernova.

If the existing science doesn't know much about its own territory, the Earth, then how is it possible for this same science to know more about stars that are hundreds of light years away? In other words, most information about stars is theoretical, and the actual knowledge is very little.

Asteroid Ceres in the Asteroid belt contains more freshwater than Earth! Has it come from no where, or the object that used to exist in the asteroid belt was a generator of water?
The only source in the universe that is capable of producing the element iron is stars. Stars release their iron, magnesium, gold and other metals they make by the end of their lives. And wherever there is rust, there is also water; otherwise the rust will not form. This indicates that the second sun was capable of creating oxygen and producing water vapor, plus iron. Based on this, and other signs that we will see later, we can tell that the source of oxygen and water on Earth was the second sun.

Mars also might have received a lot of water from the second sun, but all of it has evaporated to space because of the very thin atmosphere of the planet. The atmosphere of Mars has been burned by the 2nd sun, just like what the main Sun has done to the atmosphere of Mercury.

QUOTE: "Oxygen gas was discovered in the 1770s, but it's taken us more than 230 years to finally say with certainty that this very simple molecule exists in space"
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/herschel/news/herschel20110801.html

If oxygen exists in space, it is meaningless to attribute it to bacteria supposedly lived "billions" of years ago. The question that has to be answered is how oxygen came from space to Earth, instead of inventing imaginary sources.

The Earth's Moon Mercury

Just like all of the inner planets in the solar system, the moon has highlands, lowlands, mountains, and a mantle. So why shouldn't it be a planet?

And if it were a planet, where was it initially?

Is it a coincidence that the moon and Mercury have very similar surface features, atmosphere and size; or that is due to the same environment the two objects have lived in for a very long period of time?

Based on the arrangement of the inner planets, we see that the closer the inner planet to the Sun, the smaller it is; and the farther the bigger. Mars is the farthest inner planet from the Sun, so it should be bigger than Earth!

At the time of the solar system formation, the solar system objects were very close to each other; at that time the second sun has burned Mars and prevented it from having the size that is supposed to have; just like what the current Sun has done to the burned Mercury and the moon. Mars' atmosphere is only about 1% the atmosphere of Earth. Mercury is much closer to the sun, so it has almost zero atmosphere. More on these points in the section about the formation of the solar system.

Unlike the inner planets, the sizes of the gas planets are in reverse order: the closer the gas planet to the Sun, the bigger it is. Not just bigger, but too much bigger! Jupiter has a mass of about 317 the mass of Earth. The Great Red Spot itself is so big that three Earths would fit in it easily. Saturn's mass is about 95 the mass of Earth.

The iron-oxide (rust) in the Great Red Spot and the red-brown shades of Jupiter is very clear; where has it come from?


An artwork of a protoplanetary disk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoplanetary_disk

A companion star releases the material that makes up the protoplanetary (debris) disk, and the material afterward swirls into a black hole. Black holes were originally normal stars like our sun, but much bigger; when they go supernova explosion, they become black holes.

In the section about the rust on Mars, we will see that the closer the inner planet to the asteroid belt, the more percentage of iron oxide (rust) it has on its surface.

The so-called protoplanetary disks do "not" make new planets as assumed by the Nebular theory. They are just debris disks of dying stars. In addition to the dust and gas, they also contain rocks, metals, and many other different materials. They are basically the same as the asteroid belt, but much newer.

Some observations have shown that the source of the material that makes up the disk is a companion star. In other words, if there were no companion star (second sun) in the solar system, the asteroid belt wouldn't have existed! By the end of its life, the second sun created a "protoplanetary" disk, or better say a "debris" disk; and the asteroid belt now contains remains of that disk.

Most of the dust and gas that were in the asteroid belt have collected on top of Jupiter and Saturn and increased their gas volume. Some other amounts have fallen on the inner planets, and mixed with the planets' soil, and participated in making the strong cement that glues mountain rocks together.

The red-brown sandstone mountains on Earth contain high level of iron oxide (rust). They are called Triassic sandstone because they date back to the Triassic period, 200 million years ago!

After the summary we will see in more 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. And both of these two theories do NOT take anything outside the asteroid belt into account!

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)!

Some may say, if there are clear signs of a second sun in the solar system, they would have been noticed by the specialists who have spent their lives studying the solar system!

The fact is that the solar system studies are not based on signs and observations, but on theories only. Any sign that doesn't agree with the solar nebular hypothesis, a theory based on a single star system, is ignored, regardless how strong or clear the sign is. This may sound strange, but a recent discovery, shown in the picture below, and the quote that follows it, summarizes the currently accepted model of planet formation.

QUOTE: "We had no idea if Earth-like planets in Earth-like orbits could even form in these systems... Normally, once we see that we have a binary [a double star system], we stop observing."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140703142151.htm

As you can see in the quote above, the idea of a planet orbiting between two stars is completely ruled out. And the binary star system in the picture above was discovered by accident! We will come back to this binary system in the next section.

So there shouldn't be any surprise if there is any sign pointing to a second sun, once existed in the solar system, is completely ignored. If the specialist are ignoring what is existing now, then how they are going to trace back a similar thing but doesn't exist anymore?

They are willing to attribute the sign to anything other than a binary system! And for the simple reason, there is no place in the nebular theory to accommodate such a system. But theories are something, and facts are something else; the nebular theory has been suggested in the 18th century, in times when no one was aware of binary systems.

Many earth and space theories have been formulated without considering a second star 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 Tectonic. The other theory is the Expanding Earth. The plate tectonic 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 ocean 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!

The Permian –Triassic extinction event that took place around 250 million years ago is the worst and longest lasting disaster to ever hit the earth. It wiped out almost all life on earth! It took the earth about 30 million years to recover. This extinction event was caused by the dying 2nd sun.

Many changes and events have taken place in 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 unaware 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 the solar system.

The Second Sun -- Just like many types of stars in the final period of their lives, and because of the changes and events that have happened in the Earth and other planets in the solar system, the second sun, most likely, have fired extremely powerful gamma and neutron rays by the end of its life. These rays have led to major changes and disasters in Earth, and also changes in the other inner planets!

According to theories, stars produce light by nuclear fusion. The nuclear fusion produce gamma rays, and then these gamma rays are converted to light. On the other hand, observations have shown that some dying stars fire strong gamma rays; this means that these stars at a very late stage of their lives failed to convert the produced gamma rays to light.

The emitted gamma rays most likely have caused ionization (chemical action/reaction process) of gases inside 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 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 and asteroids 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 were actually igneous rocks, and they were originally part of the second sun. They were thrown by the second sun during its collapsing period, and then they came to orbit the planets. After falling on 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 Earth such as iron, magnesium, platinum, gold and silver have come from the second sun. They arrived on 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) started to drift! There was no continental drift before the expansion of the Earth --- What we see here is that the Continental Drift and the Expanding Earth theories are both correct in certain aspects.

Before the formation of the ocean floor, only shallow water existed on 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. Even though 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 Earth, are added parts, plus mountains. All lowlands, in all planets, are much smoother than the highlands! This is a clear indication that they have been created at a very late time. The lowland on Earth is the sea floor. No sea floor on Earth is older than 200 million years; this is found in the Pacific ocean.

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

The following quote is from an article about the Permian-Triassic extinction event.

QUOTE: "The Earth was engulfed in widespread volcanism at the time of the extinction."
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2002/28jan_extinction/

From the volcanic debris that dates back to that period of time, the specialists think it was just volcanoes covered the earth completely. The sign is the same, but the interpretations are different. This debris was not from volcanoes, but the Earth's mantle exploded and the Earth's crust opened up, making large holes and long trenches all over the world.

When the second sun started firing gamma rays at the inner, terrestrial, planets, these rays caused ionization of gases inside the Earth's mantle that led to huge increase in gas pressure that resulted in explosions.

Rocks started to fall from space (originally were parts of the second sun) and go all the way down inside the open trenches. Some of these rocks were melted inside the Earth's mantle and reproduced to make the sea floor. Other rocks were stacking up inside other trenches and building mountains. At the same time the Earth was expanding. The evidence that supports that this was actually the case is that no seafloor is older than 200 million years and no rocky mountain is older than 200 million years, all over the Earth. In addition, there is no physical evidence to show any tectonic activity before 200 million years.

What made the falling rocks to fall inside the open areas is that moving ionized gases create a magnetic field, and the falling rocks contain iron and magnetism. So the rocks were attracted to these areas more than anywhere else.

Some mountains have remained underground for a long time, and then raised by a rising magma from the mantle. Some other mountains are still being raised until this day.

The sea floor is changing size, enlarging in some places and shrinking in other places, depending on the way the Earth balances the water on its surface.

What we have here is not a natural process that is governed by a predetermined natural law, but an accident that has caused a sudden change; so the results are unpredictable. Now, for example, the Atlantic is expanding and the Pacific is shrinking; but will this process continue like that? It is up to the Earth to decide. The same thing is true for mountains; it has been noticed that the Himalaya Mountain is still rising! But for how long this rise will continue? It will certainly stop in one day, just like the other mountains that have already stopped; and another mountain may start to rise, or may not.

Knowing the role the second sun has played in the formation of the earth and the other planets, will help understand how the earth and the other planets work, which can lead to forecast natural disasters and discover new natural resources. It can also provide guidelines of where to find earth-like planets in the universe.

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 rays, most likely pulsars, or other stars with the same attributes and behavior. What makes the pulsar energies to go undetected is that the 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.

The picture above shows the orbit of a metal (iron) asteroid in the main asteroid belt, called, Psyche. It is almost in the middle of the belt. It has a diameter of about 250 km. It has "not" been visited or investigated yet. It could be the inner core of the second sun or a major part of it.

Signs of a second sun can be found everywhere!

QUOTE: "The carbon in your proteins, calcium in your bones, oxygen you breathe, iron in your blood, and almost all the other atoms in your body were manufactured inside a star!"
http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/review/dr-marc-space/supernovas.html

The difference however between what we have here and what is mentioned in the quote above is about the manufacturing date and the place of the factory. It is thought that it has happened "billions" of years ago, in an unknown place in space, whereas we say it happened 200 million years ago only, and inside the solar system. In addition, the mentioned elements are attributed to an unknown star that has gone supernova explosion, but we say the star does not have to explode as supernova in order to produce these chemical elements and others; this point is explained in the section about the Size and Nature of the Second Sun.

It is a known fact that putting all objects in the asteroid belt together will "not" make them a big star, and not even a small star in the size of the moon, but the objects themselves are remains of a star.

Every single object in the Asteroid belt carries a signature of the space object that used to exist in the belt.

A copy of each object in the asteroid belt can be found on the right and left side of the belt. For example, the asteroid belt has water ice objects. On the other hand, icy craters can be found on Mars and on the Earth's moon; on the other side, Jupiter has icy moons and Saturn has icy rings. The asteroid belt can be used as a reference, or a point of origin, for all objects that can be found on the right and left side of the belt. Water vapor is found elsewhere in space in the atmosphere of dying stars. However, the water itself may not be sufficient to conclude that the object that used to exist in the asteroid belt was a star. But if the other objects and elements are added to the formula, and the result of the formula is a star, then we have to say, based on the common sense, that the original object that used to exist in the belt was a star.


 Mars' icy crater, Jupiter's icy moons (Ganymede, Europa, and Callisto), and Saturn's icy rings

What we are trying to do in this article basically is to interpret signs, based on other signs, events and known facts. Associating all of this together instead of dealing with each sign and event as isolated cases. The conclusions that we arrive at may or may not agree with some of the existing theories. But if a theory happens to agree with some of what we have in this article, we may use it as a supporting point; and if it doesn't, we may ignore it or explain why it cannot be accepted.

The signs and events are facts, but the relationship between them sometimes is not clear, and a kind of 'fill-in-the-blank' is required. For example, when we look at the inner planets, we find all of the lowlands and mountains in these planets are made of the same material, at almost the same time. And there are signs pointing to the arrival of this material from an outside source at the same time. But how exactly mountains are made? This point is not clear. It is like seeing a table and some wood is left next to it. You can tell that the table is made of this wood, but you don't know exactly how the wood can be shaped to make the table. You may think of an idea. This idea is just an opinion that may or may not be correct. It is a kind of 'fill-in-the-blank' and subject to change in the future, if a better explanation, or a new sign supporting a different method is found.

The Radiometric (also called radioactive) dating technique is used for dating rocks, but many say it is not an accurate method, and also subject to the effect of the surrounding environment; especially if the sample under test is small or limited to one area only.

The point of this article is not about the dating technique itself. And when we say 200 million years, it doesn't mean it is a fixed date; it is just a rounded figure based on the age of the oldest ocean floor and the oldest rocky mountains.

Let's assume now that this dating technique is completely wrong, will this assumption remove the rust (iron oxide) from the surface of Mars, or make the asteroid belt disappear? Even if we get rid of all of the materials in this article that depend on the radioactive dating, some signs that point to a second sun in the solar system will be there.

If you look at the picture of the moon at the right, you can see very clearly that the dark areas (lowlands) have much less impact craters than the highlands; this simply means that the lowlands have been created at a much later time than the highlands. The same phenomenon is found on Earth, Mars, and other planets.

Basically we can get the same results with or without the radiometric dating technique.

 

Table of Contents

1. The Solar System Formation

2. Earth with 2 Sunrises and 2 Sunsets (The Night Sun)

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 Earth

9. The Size and Nature of the Second Sun

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 Earth (The Final Extinction Event)

16. Conclusion

 

1. The Solar System Formation

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

The apparent reason for the gas planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune and Uranus) 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.

All space organizations around the world are adopting the Solar Nebular theory as the base for star and planet formation.

The nebular hypothesis has been formulated in the 18th century, in times when people knew very little about the universe; thinking that all solar systems in space are like our solar system in the present time; one sun and some planets revolve around the sun; assuming the solar system in the past was exactly the same as it is today.

The initial idea of dust and gas did not come from no where, but from the properties that make up the earth. The earth consists of dust and gas, so it is assumed to have been made of dust and gas!

Even though the Nebular theory seems to work, at the first glance, with the the rocky planets, it fails to explain the gas giants. QUOTE: "The formation of giant planets is another unsolved problem."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebular_hypothesis

The supposed way of planet formation in a protoplanetary disk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9rBJDajwPc

Space technology kept improving, and astronomers kept adjusting and improving the nebular theory accordingly. In the 1990s they found some new stars (some and not all) do have dust and gas belts around them. As a result: they associated the finding with their theory.

The one minute YouTube video clip at the right above summarizes the whole idea of the so-called protoplanetary disk and planet formation.

A written summary of the solar system formation is in the following paragraph:

QUOTE: "Almost five billion years ago, our solar system had its beginnings as a vast cloud of dust and gas. The cloud began to collapse, flattening into a giant disk that rotated faster and faster, just as an ice skater spins faster as she brings her arms in. The Sun formed at the center, and the swirling gas and dust in the rest of the spinning disk clumped together to produce the planets, moons, asteroids, and comets. The reason so many objects orbit the Sun in nearly the same plane (called the ecliptic) and in the same direction is that they all formed from this same disk."
http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/review/dr-marc-earth/earth-rotation.html


An artist's impression of a protoplanetary disk.
http://www.eso.org/public/usa/images/eso0827a/
The problems is that not all young stars have dust belts around them!

If you watched the video clip above, you would have seen that it is about the formation of rocky planets only; the gas planets are not mentioned at all; because the nebular theory does not have an explanation for their formation; they are still unsolved problem! If this theory failed to explain existing cases, it shouldn't be a surprise if it failed to predict the presence of unknown situations.

In addition, the observed disks are not made of pure dust and gas, but they also contain rocks, metals and other materials, so that they can be interpreted as debris disks, QUOTE: "the debris disks around these examples (e.g. Vega, Alphecca, Fomalhaut, etc.) are probably not truly 'protoplanetary', but represent a later stage of disk evolution where extrasolar analogs of the asteroid belt and Kuiper belt."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoplanetary_disk

Summary: The nebular hypothesis, as initially theorized, hasn't been proven to exist anywhere in the entire universe; it fails to explain gas planets; and does not have any place for binary systems.

Without a companion star, the asteroid belt wouldn't have existed!


 An imaginary image shows how asteroid belts are formed

It is said that the protoplanetary disk (also called accretion disk and nebular disk) is increasing in size, whereas the debris disk is not. This point could be true because the dying star which is releasing the dust and gas is still active but hidden under the dust. The extra volume of dust and gas must come from somewhere anyway; and if it is not coming from the hidden dying star, then where is it coming from?

QUOTE: "This artist's conception shows how the accretion disk forms as material is pulled from the companion star and swirls into the black hole."
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/features/yba/cyg-X1-mass/black-holes.html
The picture to the right shows an accretion (protoplanetary) disk around a black hole.

Regardless of the function of black holes and whether the black hole is pulling the disk material from a companion star, or the companion star is just releasing the material without any pulling force, the material itself is the same as the material that makes up identical disks around other types of stars, young or aging stars.

If observations, at least in some cases, have shown that the disk material comes from a dying companion star, then on what basis the idea of a second sun in the solar system is ruled out?

These observations also show that the idea of accretion disks creating new planets and stars is completely wrong. A recycling process of the material in a black hole is needed before the material can be used again for making new planets and stars. It looks like the black hole will collapse in one day, and new planets and stars, in a gas form, will be born.

Therefore it is better search and see where the disk material has actually gone, instead of making any baseless assumption, creating planets or anything else, based on computer modeling, simulation and imagination.

By looking at the gas planets in our solar system, we can see that the closer the gas planet to the asteroid belt, the bigger it is. The reason is that the dust and gas clouds did not perform the supposed function. Instead of making new planets, they have just gone and collected on top of (or mixed with) existing planets, Jupiter and Saturn, and increased their gas volume!

The red-brown shades on Jupiter, including the Great Red Spot, are dust and "rust."

Rust is iron, a heavy metal that doesn't travel far away from the source. That could have been the reason for Saturn to get a little amount of it, but it got more of lighter dust particles.

The minimum distance between Saturn and the center of the asteroid belt is about one "billion" km, whereas the minimum distance from Jupiter to the center of the asteroid belt is about 260 million km only.

Uranus is very far away from the Asteroid belt, so it got very little amount of gases that altered its gas properties very slightly. Neptune is the farthest planet from the Asteroid belt, and most likely got nothing.

This leads to a conclusion that all of the gas planets were originally like Neptune, with very close size (if not the same) and exactly the same chemical composition, but the huge amounts of gases, dust and rust produced by the dying second sun changed their sizes and chemical properties.


Rocky mountains

Triassic sandstone mountain

The inner planets (including the earth) must have also received some of the dust and gas from the dying sun. They have been used to seal and cement mountain rocks. This point is discussed in more details in the section about mountain formation.

Higher concentration of rust on Earth is found in the so-called Triassic sandstone mountains and in the red desert sands; more on this topic is in the section about the rust on Mars.

But it seems that most of the gases were attracted to the gas planets. It could be because they are in a colder place; according to the second law of thermodynamics: heat flows spontaneously from a hot to a cold body. Or it could be of other gas attraction force that is not known in the time being.

Jupiter is a very huge planet; its mass is about 317 the mass of Earth; the Great Red Spot itself is so big that three Earths would fit in it easily. Saturn's mass is about 95 the mass of Earth. But both of them, most likely, were originally in the size of Neptune, with a mass of 17 times the mass of Earth. Now just imagine how big was the object that supplied Jupiter and Saturn with these amounts of gases, solid particles and materials to make Jupiter and Saturn that much big?

Planetary Fact Sheets (Jupiter, Saturn, Earth, etc.)
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/planetfact.html
 

The inital orbit of the Moon and the supposed size of Mars

The Moon Mercury
Just like all of the inner planets in the solar system, the moon has highlands, lowlands, mountains, and a mantle. So why shouldn't it be a planet?

And if it were a planet, where was it initially?

The moon's surface features, atmosphere and size are very similar to that of Mercury. These signs indicate that the two objects have lived in a very similar environment. And since Mercury is near the sun until this day, the moon could have been also there for a very long period of time.

QUOTE: "Like the moon, Mercury has very little atmosphere... Mercury is the smallest planet in our solar system -- only slightly larger than the Earth's moon... Mercury has a solid, cratered surface, much like Earth's moon
http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Mercury

The orbit of Mercury (see the image above) could have been caused by a missing planet between Mercury and the Sun. If we assume now that there was a planet between Mercury and the Sun, that planet, in one way or another, would have prevented Mercury from having this strange orbit.

To clarify things further, it is said that Einstein's theory of Relativity succeeded in calculating and predicting the next orbiting cycle of Mercury. We are not talking the current situation and how it can be calculated, but what has caused it in the first place. In the 19th century, a French astronomer suggested a very small planet between Mercury and the Sun, and called his small planet, Vulcan. The suggested theory states that when Vulcan passes between Mercury and the Sun, it causes Mercury to deviate from its orbit slightly. But no such a planet has been discovered so far. Others have attributed the irregular orbit of Mercury to a changing gravity of the Sun!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulcan_(hypothetical_planet)

The point is that there is a problem in the orbit of Mercury. The sun is highly unlikely causing the problem; if the magnetic field of the sun is changing as assumed, it would create a similar effect, but at a lesser degree, to the orbit of the planet that is next to Mercury. And since no small planet, Vulcan, has been found, this leaves the problem with Mercury itself or the area where Mercury is orbiting. So, if there were a planet in about the size of Mercury orbiting between Mercury and the Sun, it would have affected the orbit of Mercury in some way, and most likely it would have fixed it.

You may find articles comparing Mercury's surface features and atmosphere with that of the moon, and then they say the similarity stops here. They follow this comparison by comparing the lowlands and the internal structures (most of the internal structures is theoretical and conjecture). This type of comparison will NOT lead to the conclusion that the moon and Mercury have been neighbors near the Sun for some period of time.

The lowlands, mountains, and solid materials inside the mantle have been added at a very late time. Based on crater counting technique, the moon's lowland is only about 200 million years old; as old as the sea floor on Earth. Yes, there are theories suggesting otherwise, but why should we ignore the visible evidence for the sake of a theory that we don't know the validity of it? We will come back to the ages of lowlands in the inner planets in the section titled Expansion in all Inner Planets.

The moon is slightly smaller than Mercury. This suggests that it was closer to the Sun than Mercury.

As shown in the picture above, the sizes of the inner planets seem to be related to their distances from the sun. The closer the inner planet to the Sun, the smaller the planet is. Based on this reasoning, Mars is the farthest terrestrial planet from the sun; so it should be bigger than Earth!

Even though there was another sun on the other side, the distance from Mars to the center of the asteroid belt is about 1.18AU (177 million km). This can mean two things: the second sun was too much hotter than the existing sun, or all objects in the solar system (including the gas planets) were initially very close to each other.

But no matter how much hot was the second sun, it could not have affected Mars to the point to make it shrink that much. This leaves us with the second case: the solar system objects were very close to each other at the time of formation. And if this were the case at the time of formation, then they must have been attached to each other before the formation, including the gas planets. This suggests that all planets were initially in a gas form (no dust). And this means that the two suns acted on the inner planets in such a way and changed their properties from gas to solid objects. Of course, not entirely solid, but solid, liquid, gas and maybe other forms of matter, in different layers.

It is very likely the second sun has burned Mars at the time of formation, when they where very close to each other; so Mars has become smaller than Earth.

The moon might have received a heavy impact at a very late time that pushed it out of its original orbit around the sun, and then it started to move away. Or it might have started to move away due to some other reason that is not known in the time being.

An Artwork of Life in the Cambrian Period

The shift of position of the moon is very likely has taken place in the Cambrian period, and the moon could have been the reason that triggered water to come out from the Earth's mantle to the surface of the Earth, that led to the sudden appearance of life on Earth, in the so-called the Cambrian Explosion. More about this point in the section about the water on Earth.

There are theories about the origin or formation of the moon (details on the links below or a web search on the topic of the moon formation):
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/moon/moon_formation.html
http://www.space.com/19275-moon-formation.html

The closest theory to what we have in this page is the Capture theory; it states that the Earth caught a passing body which has originally formed somewhere else in the solar system. The Capture theory however is not the dominant theory. In fact, according to the first link above, it has been ruled out! But we have looked at it from a different point of view; and based on this view, we found it the most suitable theory.
 

Two Suns are Needed for Life to Exist -- One sun gives life, and the other sun gives resources the life depends on.

Binary (double) star systems do exist in the universe, but not many of them have been found with planets. Not because they do not contain planets, but because the Nebular theory, originally, has no place for planets in binary star systems.

The picture above is from an article about a discovery of a terrestrial planet that is similar to the inner planets of 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"... "Normally, once we see that we have a binary, we stop observing. The only reason we took such intensive observations of this binary is that we already knew there was a planet," Gould said. "In the future we'll change our strategy"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140703142151.htm

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

Another example of binary star systems is planet Kepler-16b.

QUOTE: "Kepler 16b is 200 light years from Earth. Kepler 16 is a binary star system comprising of Kepler 16A and Kepler 16B, note that Kepler 16B is the star and Kepler 16b is the planet. Kepler 16A is an orange dwarf with 69% the mass of the sun, while Kepler 16B is a red dwarf with 20% the mass of the sun. The two stars are separated by a distance of 20.5 million miles (33 million km). The combined energy produced by the two stars is much less than that produced by our own sun. Kepler 16b is a gas giant very similar in mass and radius to the planet Saturn."
http://www.solarsystemquick.com/universe/kepler-16b.htm

Even though this system is very different from our solar system, it does show that a planet orbiting two stars, and far away from the stars' energies, remains in a gas form. But if it were orbiting between the two stars, and close to their various forms of energies, it is most likely to have been a rocky planet.

Both stars are dying stars, the bigger star (16A) is an orange dwarf, and the smaller star (16B) is a red dwarf. The planet itself is in the size of Saturn. It is very likely the planet initially was much smaller than its current size, but the gases released by the dying two stars, have been collected on top of, or mixed with, the planet and increased its size and mass.

There is no mention at all of any kind of belts in this binary system (Kepler AB). And it is unlikely to form at any time in the future, because not all stars are the same, and not all stars end up in explosions. But if we assume the explosion of one of the two stars, then the exploded star will form an asteroid belt around the other star, and the planet will orbit one star plus the asteroid belt, just like Saturn now.

The common sense suggests to have two stars in the solar system for life to exist in its current form.

Stars die for you to live!

QUOTE: "The carbon in your proteins, calcium in your bones, oxygen you breathe, iron in your blood, and almost all the other atoms in your body were manufactured inside a star!"
http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/review/dr-marc-space/supernovas.html

The difference however between what we have here and what is mentioned in the quote above is about the manufacturing date and the place of the factory. It is thought that it has happened "billions" of years ago, in an unknown place in space, whereas we say it happened 200 million years ago only, and inside the solar system. In addition, the mentioned elements are attributed to an unknown star that has gone supernova explosion, but we say the star does not have to explode as supernova in order to produce these chemical elements and others; this point is explained in the section about the Size and Nature of the Second Sun.

 

Gravitation and the Center of Mass

Creating a situation to get a desired result is no big deal. Even computer games utilize "real" physics for modeling and simulating imaginary situations.

Computer modeling and simulation programs are not different from computer games; they all use the same physics equations in their applications. However, the reliability of the simulated model doesn't depend on the produced result, because the correct result can be achieved by creating the suitable situation, but it depends on whether or not the simulated model has physical evidence to support it. 

The universe doesn't work according to Einstein's or Newton's theories, but these theories have been formulated to explain some of the existing natural phenomena in the universe.

With the above points in mind, here is a question: how a small star (the existing sun) can pull a bigger star (the 2nd sun)?

Again, if we create the proper situation, the small star can easily "pull" the bigger star, and the whole system can work smoothly without any problem whatsoever.

Center of Mass: Stars do NOT "pull" planets and other smaller stars (if there is any), but they all revolve around the center of mass of the whole system. So the idea of the sun "pulling" the planets in order to keep them revolve around it is simply incorrect.

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

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 addition, the center of mass is not a force that "pulls" planets or stars and force them to orbit in one way or another, but a point in space that all objects orbit around it in such a way that keeps the entire system balanced.

And if the Sun becomes a black hole, will it swallow the Earth? QUOTE: "If the Sun suddenly collapsed into a black hole, Earth would keep right on orbiting. We wouldn't suddenly fall in. A year would still be 365 days, however chilly."
http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/scitech/display.cfm?ST_ID=265

As you can see in the quotes above, there is no pulling force between stars and planets, even if the sun becomes a black hole. We saw earlier in this section a black hole sucking dust and gas from a dying star, but that is not due to a pulling force from the black hole, it is an attraction process between gases.

In a simple binary system, the center of mass is closer to the bigger star, or in the middle of the two stars if the two stars 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 and forces inside and "outside" the system.

In the simple binary star system to the right, the two stars orbit around an "invisible" point, that is the center of mass of 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 positions of the space objects of the system do not seem to have changed much since then, because some of the remains (rocks and metals) of the second sun have remained in the asteroid belt, and some others have landed in the inner planets and made mountains and the sea floor in 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 existing sun moved closer to the center of mass of the whole system, and 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.

In addition to the center of mass of the whole solar system, 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 (The Night Sun)

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, giving only about 70% of solar heat, or even less. So where did the extra heat on the earth come from? Many theories have been suggested, 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 very short. Regarding the early Earth's surface 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 center of mass of the solar system (which happened to be where the main sun is) in parallel with earth, as shown in the opposite picture. If we were living on 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!

This parallel orbit most likely has changed by the end of the second sun's life, when it started to collapse and lose mass.

 

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 the second sun more than any other planet in the solar system.

The red shades and the Great Red Spot on the "gas" planet Jupiter are rust; the brown shades are rust mixed with dust.

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 answer above, 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.

On the other hand, Venus had more volcanoes than Mars:

QUOTE: "Venus has more volcanoes than any other planet in the solar system. Over 1600 major volcanoes or volcanic features are known (see map), and there are many, many more smaller volcanoes. (No one has yet counted them all, but the total number may be over 100,000 or even over 1,000,000)... None is known to be active at present, but our data is very limited. Thus, while most of these volcanoes are probably long dead, a few may still be active."
http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/oldroot/volcanoes/planet_volcano/venus/intro.html

 

Even though Venus had much more volcanoes than Mars, the planet does not have any noticeable rust, or we better say it cannot be seen from long distances like Mars.

Venus, as well as all of the other inner planets, must have some amount of iron oxide on their surfaces, came from the dying second sun, either via the debris disk of the second sun or its solar wind, but not as much as Mars.
 

Iron oxide covering the planet Mars

By looking at the surface of Mars, we see a very thick layer of very fine rust covering the whole 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!
 

Triassic sandstone mountains on earth contain high level of iron oxide (rust).

These "rusty" sandstone mountains are called Triassic sandstone because they date back to the Triassic period; at the end of the Permian-Triassic extinction event, 200 million years ago.

This rust could have been occupying a portion of the so-called "protoplanetary" disk (the debris disk) or the disk itself kept changing color from time to time depending on the released material from the dying second sun. And then it has fallen on Earth and mixed with the Earth's soil.

In the section about the formation of the solar system, we saw a disk that has brown and light-brown colors. The image to the right shows a disk that is mostly red and dark-red. In any case, we cannot draw any conclusion based on the colors of these disk images, because they are not real, but only artworks drawn by artists.
 

Desert sands on Earth

The desert sands on Earth also have varying amounts of iron oxide particles. There is no dating and no scientific explanation for the different chemical composition in these sands. Yes, there are theories, but theories are only thoughts. If the theory is not supported by a physical evidence that can be verified, then it is totally unlikely it can help you understand anything; and most likely it will mislead you if you have a better idea.

If we take now the radiometric dating of the Triassic sandstone mountains as a reference, we can say that these desert sands have got the iron oxide at the same time as the mountains, because the sandstone mountains were originally sand. What supports this timing is that if iron oxide existed on Earth before the Triassic period, it would have been found in the older sandstone mountains. But the older sandstone mountains have coals only; no iron or metallic elements of any kind.

The Earth's moon also has iron oxide in some areas, QUOTE: "The mare [lowland] regions have low reflectance because they contain relatively high amounts of iron oxide (FeO). Some mare basalts contain unusually high amounts of titanium oxide (TiO2) in addition to iron oxide, making for even lower reflectance. TiO2 also shifts the color of the mare from red to blue."
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/lroc-20100910_color_moon_prt.htm

As you can see in the quote above, the lowlands on the moon should be red, but the addition of titanium oxide turned them to blue. Titanium oxide (TiO2) is also a product of dying stars. Because the moon is a very dry object, no wind is there, these chemical elements remained where they have been "deposited" initially. It is very likely the highlands also got some amounts of iron oxide, but much less. The moon's lowlands are on the facing side only; the dark side has almost no lowlands.

The question now is: if iron oxide is (iron + oxygen), and there is no oxygen on the moon, what caused the iron to rust?

According to the quote above, some of the moon's lowlands contain unusually higher amounts of titanium oxide than other lowlands. Unlike the earth, the moon does not have any atmospheric or environmental changes, so what makes one basalt area different from another basalt area? This is an indication that these chemical elements have been deposited on the moon at a later time.

It doesn't seem there is any data about iron oxide on the "surface" of Venus published on the web in the time being, or it hasn't been known yet.

According to the link below, Mercury has about 3% of iron oxide on its surface: "Direct observations from Earth indicate that it is 3 percent iron oxide by mass, compared to Earth's 8 percent."
http://www.holoscience.com/wp/astronomical-myths-of-mercury-the-sun/

The same logical question arises again: if Mercury does not have any oxygen at all, what caused the iron to rust on Mercury?

QUOTE: "Mars has twice as much iron oxide in its outer layer as Earth does."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_solar_terrestrial_planets

So if the percentage of iron oxide on Earth is 8 percent, Mars, according to the Wikipedia link above, should be 16 percent.

If we try now to arrange the inner planets based on the percentage of iron oxide they got on their "surfaces," we should have them in the following order: Mars, Earth, the Moon, Venus, Mercury. In other words, the closer the inner planet to the asteroid belt, the higher percentage of iron oxide it has on its surface. Anything below the surface is just a supposition.

On the other side of the Asteroid belt, based on the visual observation, Jupiter (in the Great Red Spot, and the red-brown shades) has more iron oxide than Saturn.

Now it should be clear that the Asteroid belt (the second sun) was the distribution center of iron oxide (rust) to the solar system planets.

 

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 quote above 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 star 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 a giant star that has gone a 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 theories, 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 quote above could be true for a certain extend, because stars die very frequently, but there was another dying star injected huge amounts of radioactive material into Mars; and that star had to be near Mars for Mars to have that much radioactive pollution in its surface and atmosphere.

It is mentioned in the first quote in this section that the professor has evidence that 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 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

The rocks that are found on the surface of Mars look exactly the same as rocks that make up mountains on Earth!

Because Mars is the closest planet to the asteroid belt, and because it is polluted with rust and radioactive materials, so 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!

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, and not the normal natural factors like wind and rain. This indicates that they have arrived readymade from factory. And that factory must have been capable of manufacturing iron and magnesium (a star).

 

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/

It is mentioned in the quote above that 90-95% of life on the earth died out. It took the earth about 30 million years to recover. This type of life extinction adds evidence that shows that a completely abnormal event has taken place on Earth around that time, and lasted for a very, very long time. Following this event is the formation of sea floor, rise of rocky mountains, and continental drift. Theorists, however, do not see any relationship between these events!

"The Earth was engulfed in widespread volcanism at the time of the extinction."
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2002/28jan_extinction/

QUOTE: "Scientists have suggested many possible causes for the Great Dying: severe volcanism, a nearby supernova, environmental changes wrought by the formation of a super-continent, the devastating impact of a large asteroid -- or some combination of these. Proving which theory is correct has been difficult."
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2002/28jan_extinction/

It is written in the quote above that the cause could be a combination of these. Now if a "combination" is considered, this combination cannot be separate and isolated cases, all of them happening simultaneously in the same time, but a kind of one event triggering another, or one factor causing all of these events to happen together. Later in this section we will see a sign pointing to space as the source of this "combination."

Another 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 have in this article, this lava flow should be a result, and not a cause. It is just one more item to add to 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?!

The given date of 250 million years to this lava flow doesn't seem to be accurate. Volcanic debris at the time of the extinction and earlier was only solidified volcanic ash, no basalt. If basalt rock existed on Earth before that time, it would have appeared in sea floor and volcanic eruptions. 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? So this lava flow is very likely happened when the sea floor was forming for the first time, 200 million years ago.

NASA has sent a team to sites in Japan and China to study supposed causes of the Great Dying (The Permian –Triassic extinction event). There are rocks, originally fallen from space, in these countries with sizes of 6 to 12 km across, as big or bigger than Mt. Everest. The rocks still exist and have been exposed.


fullerene

A sign pointing to space as a cause of the extinction -- QUOTE: "Deep inside Permian-Triassic rocks, Becker's team found soccer ball-shaped molecules called 'fullerenes' (or 'buckyballs') with traces of helium and argon gas trapped inside. The fullerenes held an unusual number of 3He and 36Ar atoms -- isotopes that are more common in space than on Earth."
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2002/28jan_extinction/

From the same article at the link above; some have suggested that the fallen rocks caused the extinction, but others believe that life has been already wiped out when the rocks have arrived. The team leader said: "If life suddenly has all these different things happen to it," Becker says, "and then you slam it with a rock the size of Mt. Everest -- boy! That's just really bad luck."
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2002/28jan_extinction/


Mt. Everest

Rocks on the surface of Mars

What can be seen in the quotes above is "not" only the isotopes that are more common in space than on Earth, but also the rocks that contain these isotopes have actually fallen down from space. These rocks are exactly identical to the rocks that make up rocky mountains. And after knowing this, you don't need a magic formula to figure out that the rocks that make up mountains have actually come from space, at the time of the extinction.

Identical rocks (at least in shape) are those that are found on the surface of Mars And if the distribution of these rocks on the surface of Mars is more than any other planet, then the space object that distributed the rocks must have been near Mars. Now we are not trying to assume the impossible, but only using the common sense to see what has actually happened, and when it has happened.

 

7. The Source of Metallic Elements on the Earth

Rare earth's metals

All of the base metals on 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 two quotes above is that metallic elements have been delivered to Earth, as well as to the other inner planets in our solar system, from a star that is not the same as 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. We will see later, in the section about stars and the nature of the second sun that there are stars, classified as white dwarfs, have been observed to produce rocks and metals, and without exploding as supernova.

Metallic elements like iron can be either pure metals or metals as ingredients of rocks. These rocks are the same rocks that make up ocean floor and mountains. And since there is no rocky mountain on 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 Earth around that time only, about 200 million years ago.

QUOTE: "there are few 250 million-year-old rocks left on Earth. Most have been recycled by our planet's tectonic activity"
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2002/28jan_extinction/

The link above is about the Permian-Triassic extinction event; the quote says that there are only "few" rocks older than 250 million years left on Earth. The absence of rocks is attributed to a "theory" that hasn't been proven to exist before 200 million years! The surprise is that the so-called tectonic activity that has "recycled" all of the rocky mountains on Earth, has left huge sandstone mountains untouched! And these sandstone mountains do not contain metals at all.

The supposed few rocks that are older than 250 million years in the quote above are very likely meteorites landed on Earth from outer space, just like the meteorites that land on Earth nowadays from time to time. And these meteorites can be rocks, metals, or rocks containing metals.

 

8. The Source of Oxygen and Water on Earth

QUOTE 1: "Oxygen gas was discovered in the 1770s, but it's taken us more than 230 years to finally say with certainty that this very simple molecule exists in space"
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/herschel/news/herschel20110801.html
 
QUOTE 2: "More massive stars begin a further series of nuclear burning or reaction stages. The elements formed in these stages range from oxygen through to iron."
http://sciencelearn.org.nz/Contexts/Just-Elemental/Science-Ideas-and-Concepts/How-elements-are-formed
 
QUOTE 3: "Unusual Massive White Dwarf Stars Have Oxygen Atmospheres"
http://www.universetoday.com/44836/unusual-massive-white-dwarf-stars-have-oxygen-atmospheres/
 
QUOTE 4: "Astronomers have detected a massive cloud of water vapor around an aging star."
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast11jul_1/
 

 H2O (water vapor)
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 were the case, then all of 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.

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

The question that has to be answered now is how oxygen came from space to earth?

From the Rust on Mars, we can tell that the second sun was an oxygen-rich star, otherwise the rust wouldn't have formed. 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.

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.

Based on the conclusion that we have arrived at in the section titled Earth with 2 Sunrises and 2 Sunsets, which says that the second sun used to orbit the main Sun in parallel with Earth, we can say now that in this parallel orbit the second sun has given 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 of the planets were in a gas form, and they were very close to each other (Solar System Formation). The stars formed first and ignited, but they were not very hot, because they were 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 period of time, in parallel orbit, and when the second sun was "not" very hot, and the earth was in a gas form.
 

The Cambrian Explosion

Since life on 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 physical evidence to show otherwise.

It looks like the water vapor received from the second sun at the time of formation has concentrated in a lower layer of the Earth's interior. Later on, after the Earth's crust solidified, and for some 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.

We have seen in the section about the formation of the solar system that the moon's initial position was the first planet near the Sun, and then shifted. It is very possible that the moon has come to orbit the Earth at this time (in the Cambrian period) and caused the dynamic effects that forced the water to come close to the surface of the Earth, in the upper part of the Earth's mantle.

It is believed that the moon controls the ocean tides (the rise and fall of ocean water level). But is this the only function the moon performs?

A very major change must have taken place in Earth in the Cambrian period that triggered the sudden appearance of life, that scientists call it the Cambrian Explosion. But the cause of this change hasn't been found yet; it is still a mystery!

The arrival of the moon could have been the cause. This point however is just a suggestion and requires further research and investigation. But in any event, the Earth was almost ready for life. If the arrival of the moon has anything to do with the sudden appearance of life, it was just the missing factor that completed the formula.

An Artwork of Life in the Cambrian Period

The first group of living things were in water. And since water cannot appear in very large volume all of a sudden from no where, it must have been there but prevented from appearing on the surface of the earth.

When the water vapor came close to the upper part of the Earth's mantle, it started to come out from volcanic eruptions and forms clouds and then rain. And until this day, volcanoes produce water vapor that makes clouds and rain. More than 70% of the volcanic gases is water vapor.

The water on 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.

The amount of water in Earth most likely have increased when the second sun entered its final period of life and started releasing huge amounts of water vapor.

What we have so far are two conclusions: the first conclusion is based on the geological records that show the start of life in the Cambrian period, about 500 million years ago. The second conclusion is about the increase of the water volume in Earth, and it is based on the water ice that can be found until this day in the asteroid belt, Mars, Jupiter's moons, and in the rings of Saturn.

Water in the asteroid belt

QUOTE: "Dwarf planet Ceres in asteroid belt may contain more freshwater than Earth"
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/01/dwarf-planet-ceres-in-asteroid-belt-may-contain-more-freshwater-than-earth/

Artwork of the dwarf planet (asteroid) Ceres

Ceres is an icy object; with a diameter of about 950 km; orbiting in the outer edge of asteroid belt; far away from the sun heat. It is very likely a rock with water ice building on it.

Every single object orbits in the asteroid belt in the present time gives an idea about an attribute of the original object that used to orbit there in the past, and Ceres is no exception. It is a leftover sign indicating that the object that used to exist in the asteroid belt was a generator of oxygen and water.
 

Icy craters on planet Mars and the Earth's moon:

35 km wide crater with water ice on the surface of Mars at the north pole

QUOTE: "The crater is 35 kilometres wide and has a maximum depth of approximately 2 kilometres beneath the crater rim. The circular patch of bright material located at the centre of the crater is residual water ice."
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Mars_Express/Water_ice_in_crater_at_Martian_north_pole

What we see in the quote and picture above is that a huge object of water ice has fallen on the surface of Mars. Most of it has evaporated. And only a small part of it is still there.

Some of the ice blocks that have fallen on the surface of Mars were small that did not create craters, while others were very big, in the size of a big city, like the one above, 35 km wide.

The Earth's moon also has icy craters, QUOTE: "scientists announced that more than 600 million tons of moon water ice is lurking at the bottom of dark craters at the lunar north pole."
http://sservi.nasa.gov/articles/water-discovered-in-apollo-moon-rocks-likely-came-from-comets/

Icy moons and rings on the other side of the asteroid belt

Jupiter's Icy Moons (Ganymede, Europa, and Callisto) Saturn's Icy Rings

If the object that used to orbit in the asteroid belt were the source of some matters on the inner planets, some quantity of the same matter is expected to go to the other side of the belt. The water ice is no exception: icy craters on the moon and Mars; icy moons and icy rings on the other side (Jupiter's Icy Moons and Saturn's Icy Rings). These craters, moons and rings were originally water vapor. But converted into other forms of water due to different temperatures and domains.

 

9. The Size and Nature of the Second Sun

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 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 thousands 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 to 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 second sun in a certain category, 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 theoretical, a type of 'thought to have' or 'believed to be', and the facts are extremely limited.

The little knowledge about stars is expected anyway; if the existing science doesn't know much about its own territory, the Earth, then how is it possible for this same science to know more about stars that are hundreds of light years away?

The Sun of the solar system is classified as a star that will end up as a white dwarf. Based on this theoretical 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 verified. 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 gravity 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.

QUOTE: "When a star reaches the end of its life and burns out the last of its nuclear fuel, it becomes unstable. What happens next depends how much mass the star has – it could explode and end up as a black hole or neutron star. But if the star has too little mass, theory predicts that it will slowly shed its outer layers and end its days as a white dwarf. A white dwarf is a small, faintly lit object made of super dense stuff called degenerate matter. It is thought that most stars, including the Sun, will end their days as white dwarfs."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/space/universe/sights/white_dwarfs

As you can see in the quote above, the adopted information about stars is theoretical mainly, so why should we limit our conclusions with theories that can change any time? If it happens that actual observations conflict with any of these theories, we have to take the actual observations over the theories.

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

The current star theories divide stars into two classes: white dwarf and neutron stars. 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 that fade away over time. 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.

NASA's Hubble Space Telescope Finds Dead Stars 'Polluted with Planet Debris
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 over time, 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, regardless whether they agree with the current theories or not. And then we look and see whether these functions are found in any of the currently known stars.

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

The second sun most likely have emitted gamma rays that were capable of penetrating the earth's crust. This function is found now in pulsars and generally all or most of neutron stars; plus the white dwarf mentioned above. It is sufficient to find this function in some stars, regardless whether the second 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.

According to theories, stars produce light by nuclear fusion. The nuclear fusion produce gamma rays, and then these gamma rays are converted to light. On the other hand, observations have shown that some dying stars fire strong gamma rays; this means that these stars at a very late stage of their lives failed to convert the produced gamma rays to light.


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 process 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 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, can cause explosions, some signs of it would have shown up. But since nothing other than the gases has shown up, then 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 that is worth mentioning: 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 250 km. This asteroid could be the inner core of the second sun, or a major part of it. 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

If it is visited, and the space craft tests it 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 basalt rocks. All the lowlands, in all of the inner planets, are younger than the 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 than the oceanic crust, 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.

At the time when rocks were falling from the sky, they fell either in trenches or on the newly forming ocean floor, because of the high magnetic field at these places. The magnetic field was created by the moving ionized gases; the ionization of gases was created by gamma rays from the dying second sun.

QUOTE: "Motion of an ionized gas will produce a magnetic field."
http://stars.astro.illinois.edu/aurora.html

Since the falling rocks contain iron, they were attracted to the nearest magnetic field.

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 on ocean floor were 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 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 inside 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 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 meters on the scale). Like the seafloor on Earth, the lowlands on Mars are made mainly of molten basalt 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.

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 basalt rock!

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 and 500 million years. But this is just an assumption. 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. Visually the lowlands on Mercury appear much younger in age than the highlands.

The only difference between the Earth's lowlands and the lowlands on the other inner 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 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.

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 some of 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 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.

 

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 island Pangea, the assumed world map 225 million years ago!

The tectonic theory states that the continents before 200 million years were in one single land sitting in a very vast ocean (right). 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.


World map; Atlantic centered

A 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. Moreover, both theories are not taking into consideration the ages of the lowlands of the other inner planets!

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

The fact that cannot be missed is that neither the ocean floor existed nor the 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; ridges from all sides, no trenches

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 to 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 intact, 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 that Australia and South America were connected together at least 50 million years ago. QUOTE: "The first evidence we have of marsupials [kangaroo-like animals] 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 the other inner planets, it is very likely the earth's lowland was flat in the beginning, without ridges and trenches. But just like winds and rain changing 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, 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! 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 is that 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.

 

13. How Are Mountains Formed?

One of the greatest mysteries that are found on 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 everybody. 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 Earth have come from underground. And before they were pushed up, they are assumed to have been created underground.


Rocks on the surface of Mars

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

Some mountains look brown or dark brown, this is because of weathering effect, but if we look at a broken rock, we see it very dark inside. These dark rocks are called Mafic, Ultramafic, or basalt, 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 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 applies to ocean floor; not all parts of ocean floor have the same amount of minerals.



Himalaya Mountains

Even though mountains look solid or molded blocks, they are made of separate rocks, stacked up and cemented together with some of the continental curst materials like sand and mud. When the cement loses its strength, the rocks fall down.

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.

When comparing the lowlands and mountains of the Earth with the lowlands and mountains of the other inner planets, we can see that the difference between cracks where mountains were 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 space, just like mountains on the other inner planets, whereas the cracks in ocean floor were stretched after water filled ocean basins.

At the time when rocks were falling from space, they fell either in trenches or on ocean floor, because of the high magnetic field at these places.

The magnetic field was created by ionized gases; the ionization of gases was created by gamma rays from the dying second sun.

QUOTE: "Motion of an ionized gas will produce a magnetic field."
http://stars.astro.illinois.edu/aurora.html

Since the falling rocks contain iron, they were attracted to the nearest magnetic field.

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.

Because the base layer of trenches is much smaller, it solidified much faster.

Any rock that fell on ocean floor has broken through or melted, whereas rocks that fell in trenches have stacked up.

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

An artist's impression of a protoplanetary disk.
http://www.eso.org/public/usa/images/eso0827a/

The presence of Earth materials, such as sand and mud, 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 of Mars above, but inside trenches. The wind blows on the surface of 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. Or, what looks like earth materials was actually dust came together with the rocks from the so-called "protoplanetary" disk (the debris disk of the second sun). Or, a combination of all of the above mixed together.

Since mountains have grown initially from trenches that were open to the mantle, or partially open to the mantle, the mountains have to be 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. This point will be discussed again later in this section.

Because mountains have their roots connected directly to the mantle, most volcanoes are found mainly in mountainous areas.

Rocks on Pothole dome is an example of rocks that have fallen from the sky at a late time!

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

This dome seems to be 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 show 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 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!

In the section about the Permian-Triassic extinction event, we have read about the huge rock, in the size of Mt. Everest, that have fallen from the sky during the time of the extinction. This indicates that the falling rocks have something in common with the actual cause of the Great Dying. And since there were no rocky mountains on Earth before 200 million years, the found rocks in China and Japan add evidence to support that the rocks that make up mountains have actually come from space, at the same time of the extinction.

We have already seen the row of rocks in the picture of Mars. Despite those rocks were covered in sand, the sand did not glue them! There had to be 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.

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 the picture at the right 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; 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, condenses 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 dust, sand and mud, 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 up 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 up together, but not melted because of the increased distance between the new rocks and the mantle. They formed a mountain hill. Later on, the rising magma kept pushing the whole block up.

Since the amounts of fallen rocks are 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.

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 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 (like the picture above). 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 shows 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.
 

Mountain ranges on the other inner planets

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

A map showing mountain ranges on the moon
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/LPC-1Serenitatis.jpg

Mountain ranges on the edges of the Ring of Fire
The structure of the moon is not the same as the structure of Earth. So if you try to find on the moon an exact image of mountains on Earth you will not find it. But similarities do exist in all of the inner planets.

The map above shows the mountain ranges of Montes Haemus and Montes Caucasus. These mountain ranges are on the "edges" of Mare [lowland] Serenitatis; they are similar to the mountain ranges on Earth that are on the "edges" of the Ring of Fire. Their locations on the edges of lowlands on both planets indicates that they have been created in exactly the same way.

On Earth, it assumed that there is a barrier between the mountains and the mantle, and that barrier is the highland crust. This assumption is needed in order to say that mountains formed as a result of a collision between two tectonic plates; and these plates belong to the land crust (the highland).

If you look now at the mountains shown on the map of the moon above, in the area that is similar to the ring of fire, you can see that the mountains are connected directly to the lowland, the basaltic layer that is covering the mantle, no barrier or land crust in between.

The similar area on Earth is covered in water, but if you could remove the water and sand around these mountains, you will find them connected directly to the lowland; no land barrier in between. Basically, there is no major difference between the Earth and the other inner planets except the water. And of course, the tectonic plates have nothing to do with the formation of mountains. The water on Earth is the one that has played the major role that changed the Earth's surface features. And this couldn't have happened before the addition of rocks that created mountains and lowlands 200 million years ago.

Despite the absence of water on other planets, the presence of ancient volcanoes proves the presence of gases in other planets' mantles. These gases played the same function for mountain formation as the function performed by water vapor on Earth in cementing rocks together.


 Mars' icy crater, Jupiter's icy moons (Ganymede, Europa, and Callisto), and Saturn's icy rings

In addition to the internal gases, and from the water ice on Mars, the icy moons of Jupiter, and the icy rings of Saturn, we can tell that the other inner planets, including the moon, have received a lot of water vapor, ice blocks, gas and dust from the second sun when it entered its final period of life. All of this participated in the mountain building process, just like the earth.

Water on the moon, QUOTE: "scientists announced that more than 600 million tons of moon water ice is lurking at the bottom of dark craters at the lunar north pole."
http://sservi.nasa.gov/articles/water-discovered-in-apollo-moon-rocks-likely-came-from-comets/

Asteroid Vesta, a supposed planet with a mountain!


Asteroid Vesta
There is a large asteroid in the asteroid belt called, Vesta. It has a diameter of about 525 km. This asteroid has what looks like a mountain. And because of this mountain, it is thought initially that it has a core and mantle; just like the inner planets; based on the idea that suggests that mountain rocks come from underground.

The initial thought, QUOTE: "Large asteroid Vesta once had molten core, magnetic field -- Despite its skewed appearance, Vesta seems to have many features in common with planets.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/10/large-asteroid-vesta-once-had-molten-core-magnetic-field/

This asteroid has a very deep impact crater on one side. It has been found out recently that the crater depth is about 60 to 100 km, but did not reach the supposed mantle, QUOTE: "The new study, however, shows that, while it did reach about 60-100 km, it did not penetrate to the mantle, suggesting the mantle begins deeper than previously thought.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/07/massive-impacts-show-asteroid-has-deep-crust/

If this asteroid is broken apart, they are not going to see any mantle inside. In fact, none of the objects that are orbiting now in the asteroid belt is supposed to have a mantle, because all of them are debris of the second sun.

Regarding the assumed mountain on this asteroid, it looks like it has been made of rocks came together and stacked up because they contain magnetism; just like the stacking up rocks on the surface of Mars but much more. Dust, gas and water vapor from the debris disk of the second sun built around these rocks and made the strong cement that glued them together; and now the rocks look very much the same as mountains on Earth and the other inner planets.

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

 

14. Earthquakes, Tsunamis and Volcanoes

Normal earthquakes that happen very frequently along fault lines are not the kind of events that draw the 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.

We saw in the previous section, which is about the formation of mountains, that there is no barrier between mountains and the basaltic layer that covers the mantle; and the mountains are raised up by power coming directly from the mantle. So the idea that attributes the mountain formation to collisions taking place between Earth plates is completely wrong. The same thing is true for earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and tsunamis; they are caused by powers coming directly from the mantle; the land crust and the supposed tectonic plates have nothing to do at all with these disasters. And in the section about the water on earth, we saw that the Seafloor Spreading theory has no physical evidence to support its existence; it is just a theoretical idea that has no ground to stand on. Basically, there is nothing between the basaltic layer and the mantle.

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

In the past, that energy was gamma rays fired by the second sun. Nowadays it is fired 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 picture to the right 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 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.

2011 Japan Earthquake and Tsunami

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. And because of the ionization process that occurs 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, which can lead to the expansion in the gas volume or gas pressure.

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 some types of gases, or shows some abnormal behavior, that does not mean at all no external factors are involved. For example, if the x-ray shows that earth cracks come close to, or move away form, each other, that 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 pushed a table, and the table pushed a chair and caused it to fall down; if you don't see the person who has pushed the table, will you assume the table itself, the static and inactive object, has managed to push the chair, or you will search for the active factor that caused the table to move in the first place?

On the other inner planets, or some of them at least, there is no movement in the crust, because the mantle is empty or does not have anything that can cause movement in the crust. On Earth, the mantle has substances that are subject to change and make changes; but in order for these substances to change and make changes, an action/reaction process must first takes place.
 

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 to 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/

"homing pigeons get disoriented when their sense of smell is impaired"
http://www.egu.eu/news/81/how-pigeons-may-smell-their-way-home/

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 the 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 the gas as the common factor.
 

Earthquake Lights

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

The picture to 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. It doesn't seem there is any recording of this earthquake frequency published on the web, but 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 Earth, and that frequency range cannot penetrate the Earth atmosphere without severe distortion. However, 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 the Earthquake Lights mentioned 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 shows that an ionization process is happening inside the earth's mantle, before, during, and after, the time of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions.

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

As mentioned in another section, moving ionized gases create a magnetic field.

QUOTE: "Motion of an ionized gas will produce a magnetic field."
http://stars.astro.illinois.edu/aurora.html

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.

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 there is no 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 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. Although this is a very difficult experiment to make, 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 a 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. Magnetic sensors are to be used along with gas sensors to avoid false indications.

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 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 Earth (The Final Extinction Event)


An imaginary painting of an extinction event

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, to fire gamma rays at the earth. But unlike gamma rays that hit the earth nowadays from distant stars, the sun is a very near star, so the effect will be 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 causing 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.

Even though the second sun was from the same family as the current sun, the two suns were not exactly the same. According to theory, the main sun will expand as a red giant up to the orbit of the Earth; and it will consume Mercury, Venus, the moon and Earth; and then it will shrink as a white dwarf. This scenario cannot be ruled out, but if it happens, it will be only after the events mentioned above.


 

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 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. 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 verified.

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

Knowing what has happened in the past isn't only good information to have, but also helps solving problems occurring today and predicting the future. It may not be important for many to know whether a second sun existed or not, but certainly everybody cares about earthquakes and other natural disasters.

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.

And any idea, comment, opinion or disagreement, from anybody, is very welcomed.

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2014 - 2015  2sun.cc

Home (2sun.cc)