Pymander

All kinds of particles can be created by high energy impacts with atomic nuclei. Many also exit the nucleus spontaneously. All of them are protons, electrons, photons, or their anti-particles (viewing neutrinos as anti-photons), when the unstable emissions have broken down (meson, bosons and such). The neutron with half life 10.3 minutes is the most stable. The antiparticles seem to result from impacts, except in the case of beta radiation, but these may be a result of neutrino impacts, originating in the galactic core, from which anti-photons would be repelled. Presumably then, photons and anti-photons would rematerialize in void intergalactic space, replenishing universal matter and anti-matter. Again, mass-energy conservation is thus reinstated! And if gravity has a general relativistic cause analogous to the special relativistic cause of magnetism, universal expansion and material separation are likewise explained. Material gravity is also a dipole if so, while presently gravity is regarded as to only monopole. High energy photons, however, are otherwise known to produce particles and their anti-particles symmetrically and invariantly (no asymmetry) under condition which allow momentum and energy conservation. Many an argument may be found to suggest reasons why electrons can not exist within the nucleus. Is it possible that electrons with relativistic energies, and thus both relativistic high mass as well as high frequency, would allow such a condition? Protons, electrons, and their binding energy as such, may be the only components of nuclei. Electron flux, shared between protons (analogous to covalent chemical bonds) may well be responsible for binding the nucleus. This is all the more plausible because a fine balance would determine stable nuclei, or the ejection of particles of the appropriate charge (electrons, protons or helium nuclei). Also, the gamma ray or neutrino emissions would then represent the relativistic energy lost by binding electrons, and explain atomic energy. Even the energy of the hydrogen bomb, which utilises deuterium and tritium for fusion, would generate energy likewise, emitting neutrons which disintegrate with the production of energy, exponentially falling off with half life 10.3 minutes! Considering that the n-body problem is insoluble (predicting future states of globular clusters, which are likely galaxy remnants), calculating stability conditions for nuclei can only be more difficult. For instance, does the inability of Technetium to form a stable isotope have any other known explanation?

As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene...No-one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life. Jesus is too colossal for the pen of phrase-mongers, however artful. No man can dispose of Christianity with a bon mot.

If I may deflect a little disinformation here, concerning usury, please consider the following in the light of current world problems, and the current status of those who have adhered to such teaching, and now control 'democracies'. (KJV best - history National Geographic very recently). Exodus 22:25 - 22:27. Leviticus 25:35 - 25:38. Deuteronomy 23:19 - 23:22. Psalms 4:1. Psalms 15:1 - 15:5. As for the consequences of accumulated wealth, power and oppression, the year of 'jubile' (sic) was assigned for a cure, Leviticus 25:8. The alternative is many times over written history of past civilisations, and serves only as a warning yet to be headed by other races, back to Plato. Truth, justice and liberty is the code of the super race. Disinformation sets up roadblocks in our minds. Consider Greece today. There are 365 churches on the island of Kythera alone, frustrating the usurping of real democracy by investors. The Greeks have not headed the fifth ecumenical council, 553AD Constantinople (remember Troy - long thought but legendary - never reconciled - consider Cypress!). Effect - no disinformation - no inconsistency between their scripture & their orthodoxy - no "it is an insult to the intelligence to expect people to believe 'scripture'" as elsewhere, even from Archbishops! To quote Isaac Newton once more, 'because Sir, I have studied it, and you have not' (concerning Asrology no less - Job 38:31). If you care nothing for truth, why are you really here arguing? To troll them that "express opinions which are not a part of their social environment"? Children in the schoolyard? Oops, I preach.

Thanks for that, it somewhat puts that suspicion to rest. I don't know much about mass spectrometers, how they work and whether the technology used uses hypotheses that are inconsistent with realities not yet manifest to science. Short of that, I guess my idea is inconsistent. Pity. It seemed to simplify much for a while. Thanks for your input.

I did imply that I will not be blinkered by subject boundaries. In palaeontology and astronomy it is impossible to operate like that. But an understanding of thermite and amalgams IS chemistry. However, again, the strict application of the GoldShmidt categories is unrealistic, don't you think? With a handwave and some jargon we dismiss ANY U being amalgamated in the core, settling and concentrating under gravity in the macroscopic, and ignore an explanation for the global bedrock patterns recently mapped in age and type. Certainly a crust of lithofile oxides formed quickly and thickened. Beneath it turbulence from convection at least would have kept many lithofiles submerged in the iron, until cratons had extracted nearly all oxygen compounds. Surely, under these circumstances, our knowledge of heat generation capacity of the core,and its ultimate capacity for realease since the Cambrian Explosion, best explained by the sudden appearance of fresh water with the initial rifting, is primarily guesswork. This covers one prima facie objection to Global expansion. We assume a constant radius, and have learned nothing from the (tacit) absolute time and space hypothesis which hamstrung releativity. The second objection, likewise, is the tacit constant volume of global water hypothesis, which I covered in H2O. Why can't we be honest and say maybe this, maybe that and maybe some of each. To my mind, beyond (inorganic)chemistry and of course mathematics, no other science is is realistically able to do otherwise. Dare I say it again? The word preposterous best describes some of the hypothetical foundations laid down since Einstein and many changed for the worst (eg. The far side of the moon was our lithosphere, and left the Pacific Ocean. Even Google Earth must make you wonder if this is not true. What would the antiproton have revealed to Einstein, do you think? A unified field theory, maybe? No mathematics, but I have suggested an experiment to test the theory. As for my steady State Theory. I believe a negative gravitational (but not inertial) mass for the electron would begin verification and explain much besides, even in meteorology. Can this be done yet?

Once, wayback, someone claimed in a counter-argument, that Uranium was a"Lithopfle element". This is the accepted view but is it right?This is based on the affinity to oxygen, so that the ligther oxides float on the core material of mainly iron. onsidering the well known processes of thermite welding, and panning for gold using metallic mercury, I can't help wondering if this ignores facts. It seems to me that these elements would have tended to exhaust available oxygen, at which point the process for forming aluminosilicates and their compsites with metallic oxides (rocks & minerals) would have ceased. The excess of iron, also a lithofile element, would otherwise not have manifested as an iron core but as part of the qlithosphere. Lithospheric "slag" would haveseparated toward the surface from an homogenous mass with a turbulent past. The iquid was (2.2 thousand million years old already since blown from supernovas at great speed = temperature before accreting.. In this ball of liquid, who knows which metals have amalgamated with this iron as it sank to the core (as in as in a thermite weld. Now it is known that there are 2 to 4 parts per million Uranium in the crust amterials. Could an experiment determine what percentage of would reside in the core, using an appropopriate thermite mix of elements? What ever mix leaves 2 to 4 parts per million U/Fe is the jackpot. Stony + iron metioritesdmay reveal some such data, but the planets differ greatly in composition, and proportion. What can these reveal with any reliability? Do we face a Krypton scenario? Are we sure that the new asteroid genesis hypothesis is correct. To say that it is a long shot is rather punny.Was the rvision meant to dispell apocalypse scenarios.are we deceived by the availability of O2 in our atmosphere. Bacteria that symbiotically invaded larger cells are ( to becomehloroplasts)are responsible. for this, since 3900MYA, when cyanobacteria first appeared. withTthe reverse side of the organic energy cycle likewise wasassumed by mitochondria (mitoclorions?). These still have their own DNA! Any way, interesting as these asides are to me, these facts, obviously relate to thecrackpot Expansion tectonics hypothesis. sthheat source implied could be significant.The consequences of say, a factor of 1000 out for core Uranium? a density of 18 tfor U to Au 19. prompts another Is density also significant, in drawing wetals down to concentrate the heavier ones over the scales of distance and time involved? I will be very interested in views or explanations on this matter. Lastly, as I have done here, is there a possibility that, as the specialisation required to get to the top increases, and society becomes more economically polarised and competitive, it becomes more likely that contradictory facts, acrossing subject boundaries pass as fact unnoticed? Does science choose a path come hell or high water, rather than present contrary possibilities, in a attempt to enhance credence? Does unleashed knowledge threaten even a nation's position in the economic/industrial complex or waring forces, so that science is coerced, bribed, ridiculed, and honoured by the same forces? What if E=mc^2 had gone to Hilter instead? Could all necessary hypotheses, concerning the unchangeable nature of the manifestation already be in the hands of the select, leaving only the endless mathematical methods to unfold? Is the frontier,not yet known or released, be a pantomime like our politics, with too many willing and well paid collaborators? Rome was first to fall by its own hand, misapplied! Conspiracy theory, right? So was Jefferson &Einstein by today's definition, weren't they?

Sure they do! The predictions failed and the hypothesis was NOT abandoned, but even more speculative hypotheses were added for everything since Albert Einstein told Hubble that the universe was expanding. He did NOT offer an explanation that contradicts General Relativity, no less than he would provide a scenario where matter came out if the twilight zone at greater than the speed of light (just as plausible). Hubble took it to the ridiculous, and its getting worse right to the present. You will notice that I accepted the figures didn't add up and I accepted that my hypothesis should be suspended for the present pending unknowns. I didn't even challenge the 1.6 GA (directly) although it wouldn't be hard. But if at the end I have to come up with experimental data and mathematical proofs of my assertions, what's the point. It's not my purpose to 'prove' anything of such a nature because it can't be. Science grows out of ideas, and as with Einstein's contemporaries, many people collaborate on them to achieve the paradigms. You expect this from me on a forum, or to just answer science homework questions instead? If that's what a forum is, it will take science nowhere.

A soap box to some is science to me. A testable model in the context of "The water on this planet is a result of, primarily, the solar wind reacting with the atmospheric oxygen since photosynthesis began"? Is this any more possible, according to your guidelines and limitations, than doing the same with, for example: 1. "The universe as we know it today is the result of a super-compressed state of matter, beyond the limits of a black hole by orders of magnitude, without material cause, exploding; rather than light being the original "creation", with the ability to materialise as is an established, but little understood fact." 2. "The absence of antimatter in the current state of affairs is due to asymmetrical behaviour of two types of matter, alike in a plethora of other behaviours." 3. "Dark matter is the reason that galactic clusters are assembling although the light matter is insufficient to explain this." 4. "Dark energy is the reason for anomalies in the cosmic microwave background predicted on the basis of the Big Bang Hypothesis." 5. "The measureable matter and energy throughout the universe is the fundamental cause of all things without exception, although the alternative hypothesis that consciousness is the first cause and made manifest as the senses (the earth element), the emotions (water), the desires (fire) and the temperaments (air), cannot be refuted or distinguished as uniquely more correct than the alternative (hence the universe may not have an existence independent of the observer, fundamental to special and general relativity), and is thus an equivalent statement, not just anciently, but even according to the calculations and investigations of Albert Einstein." How do these hypotheses qualify as requiring none of what you demand of me? How does the "unless it is mainstream" not constitute, dare I say it, hypocrisy? Your methods that apply to a test tube do not apply to a planet, let alone a universe, or any reality beyond its manifestation that goads the scientific mind to find its causes. In short, it may have a purpose, regarding the "observers". Close this thread, I've already said goodbye three times, and yes, rules have a purpose. Your site, your purposes.

1.6 GA on the surface? Not more directly? Is that what it would require? Then the theory fails on two counts, doesn't it? At least the magnetic field source component. Pity, because, reading the "Book of Life" edited by Stephen Jay Gould (this is by no means a children's book but quite detailed and technical and with minimal iconology (you need another book full of icons to identify the species discussed)) this 'oxidised solar wind protons' idea seemed to explain a great many things. I read the book twice in as many months, and see the world as more beautiful because of it. However, the stance of the authors is decidedly aetheistic, with which I am NOT in sympathy, and without apology. I do believe that the souls here had this world and its fates, written in the stars, and our palms, specifically created for them by benevolent forces. Right on topic, and even citing the morning stars, Venus and Mars, is JOB Chapter 38, written according to Edgar Cayce, by the same soul who designed the Great Pyramid, Blessed Abraham, and became the Christ (MICAH 5:2). "Any man who does not appreciate the beauty of nature is like a dead man" - Albert Einstein. http://www.amazon.com/The-Book-Life-Illustrated-Evolution/dp/0393321568 But then, the strange circumstance of so much water between Venus an Mars has an easier explanation. I question everything (Aquarius), but perhaps it is right. If the solar wind did NOT blow their water away (and I can not assess the certainty of that assertion with my understandings, beyond the questions raised here already), then there is obviously much more to be discovered. If I may offer a more general opinion here - such macroscopic composites as the Earth, the Sun, the Universe, the Human brain, body and the entire functional entity mentally (psychology), evolution, and even consciousness itself, can we ever be certain of our understanding of them? To call such 'information' speculative or science based on mainstream (current possibly transient credentialistic opinion) is fair enough, but without overtones of blasphemy, heresy, anathema and demonic (insane) as we once did. I hope this little blog-like conclusion does not offend, and with my other posts, affords some solace to those Christian folk that our current materialism must certainly dismay. Thank you all for your time.

Thank you Swansont. I was aware of the right hand rule, the dot and cross product in vector physics, etc. The rest is beyond me. But I assumed, naturally, that the current takes a more circuitous route like in a solenoid, or perhaps due to a gyroscopic rotation of the liquid core mass and the charges whose relative motion create the magnetic field due special relativistic effects, as is known. This is why I alluded to the Sun's macroscopic magnetic phenomena and the unexpected effects manifested there. Thank you also, pavelcherepan, but again, I am using the older interpretation of oxidation-reduction here, and not the more modern electron donor-acceptor stuff. I don't know if the protons become atoms first, possibly, because electricity is pretty free flowing. Or maybe the H+, e- and O2 must party together, or in stages as with outer well known processes. Either way, eventually the water must form, and it does seem improbable to be otherwise to me. But there seems to be a huge factor amiss for the formation of oceans on this planet. If it is not conclusive, and I don't think that it is, the probability of the scenario suggested is what, 10%, pending unknowns? I'm not unhappy to leave it there. Like in a chess game, if you win, great, if you lose you learn, and learning is the name of the game for science too, no?

Please indulge my meagre learning a little further, so that the problem may also be solved for yours truly. a) not all of the protons will get into the atmosphere at poles, but a lot will be trapped in Van Allen Belt. Q. Will these protons, then, not be oxidised at the South magnetic pole and in the Van Allen Belts, in total all of them? b) the amount of protons coming with the solar wind is tiny (the number in post #39 includes both electrons and protons) c) the amount of electrons coming with solar wind is tiny Q. Therefore the number of dissociated hydrogen atoms created will be around half of 5*10^27 per second and the number of water molecules created will be half of that again = 1.25*10^27 and with atomic weight 1 + 1 + 16 then (1.25*10^27)/(18*6*10^23)=115 grams of water per second, right? Now the current O2 levels would not be constant about the Earth over the 3900 MY period since cyanobacteria evolved, and even seasonal which is shown by the banded iron formations. Assuming the hypothesis proposed as an alternative, that our water was in the same proportions to other lithosphere elements, bound or otherwise, a little more on Mars and less on Venus due distance from sun, in the beginning, we might assume a linear increase. There will be some loss due precipitation of FeSO4 as Fe2O3. This ore is almost pure in Western Australia and 40% of global total. As such, obviously, precipitation will be a rapidly decreasing influence. Now, 30% O2 levels in the Carboniferous was attained so errors should well and truly cancel. To the present then we might get, at the present rate of oxidation: 0.115 Kg.H2O / second * 3900,000,000 * 365.25 * 24 * 60 * 60 seconds / 2 for the equation assumed = 14.1 * 10^15 Kg.H2O Now, we have 332,500,000 cubic miles of water on, in and above the earth, and the earth's oceans are regarded as representing 96.5% of the entire planet's total. https://water.usgs.gov/edu/earthhowmuch.html Now there are 4.16818183 * 10^12 litres per cubic mile so the O2 may have generated 3395.6 cubic miles of water from the solar wind since 3900,000,000 BC. So I guess I am wide of the mark by about a factor of 1,000,000, unless my arithmetic sucks, or solar mass ejection and cosmic rays can make up the difference, or the three contributing sources of protons have a very different relationship to the one assumed over time (not entirely unreasonable), or our accepted statistics are way off (a possibility), or there have been a huge number of comets decreasing over time, bombing the earth. Okay, thanks for the help. I guess the conjecture is amiss.

I can't make head of tail of posts #38 and #39. A huge amount of dissociated hydrogen blasts way out past Pluto. It has very high velocity = temperature. However it may rip through the atmosphere, even if it is entirely deflected to enter at the magnetic poles, the hydrogen nuclei must combine with the oxygen, and the positively changed water formed must eventually acquire electrons and become neutralised to join the earth water resources. How is this not correct? At the other pole, electrons enter the planet to balance the charge, and this process must constitute a current through the earth, and by some means, perpetuate the earth's magnetic field. Why is this not right? If we can get past this, I may proceed to the other questions. If I am wrong about this, I am wrong about the whole deal.

Jupiter's magnetic field is extreme. Below the gases and under the weight, hydrogen acts like liquid metal. Under the gravity, and through the field, Jupiter is gathering mass from the solar wind directly, and separating the electrons and protons N & S as on earth, to some extent but not necessarily 100%, and the current runs between the magnetic poles. The earth is not a gas giant that will have the gravity, but it has oxygen providing energy to the system as a magnetic field. Both have a liquid metal cores. Beyond this speculation, what do we know? We can not explain the red spot of Jupiter. We can not know the path of electrons through the vaguely understood complexity of the earth, or the Sun's various electrical-magnetic phenomena. The behaviour of the electric and magnetic fields on large scales is like turbulence in water to resolve mathematically, nigh impossible differential equations to even describe, much less solve. We have no certain explanations either for sprites, positive lightning, or St. Elmo's ball lightning that makes much sense yet. However, my main claim here is that oxygen, once created in a free state on earth, has caused the oxidation of protons from the solar wind, due to cyanobacteria initially, over three and a half thousand years, and thus created the conditions on earth for higher life forms and an acceleration of the process. I am suggesting that the hypotheses regarding this matter may need revision, and also leads to possible errors regarding our tectonics. Check out the first link in post #30. The mid ocean ridge creating the ocean basin is at the same time the zone of subduct ion for the Gulf of California, clearly, and poses a fairly obvious contradiction. Meanwhile, the entire Pacific mechanism is severely disarranged. It does not compare with other oceans, given this chronological information. Lastly, how is it reasonable that high energy protons (hydrogen ions) entering an atmosphere of 20% oxygen, is not being oxidised on contact, and the process concentrated as Aurora Australis and sprites? How do we not see the evidence from slowly expanding stromatolites, BIFs and related phenomena from 3900 MYA on? How is the Moon's dichotomous crust and synchronous rotation explained? What mechanics explains tidal locking? All these things may well be interrelated, and demand a complete revision of paleontological and geological theories, and much more besides. Perhaps we may conclude here, and allow time and tide to take its course with these ideas. Thanks for your participation.

Acme, why do you wriggle like a worm when confronted with information that takes you out of your depth. "Planets on either side of the earth have scanty water, but we have oceans of it." Many areas of science, truly so called, become a part of that discussion, so tell me this? If it is relevant to the topic, like caterpillars and butterflies, why do you squirm? Because butterflies are pretty and caterpillars are creepy? The best response so far, to the questions raise, concerning the conjecture "because the solar wind blew their water away, and we have a magnetic field", is 234 km^3.O2/day. And here's some more doubt you may like to clarify, which has nothing to do with tectonics (or does it?) Oxygen + protons + electrons = positively charged water + electricity. electricity = magnetic field. No oxygen, no magnetic field. So we have blown up another dubious conjecture about the geodetic dynamo, haven't we. The system that creates auroras is self perpetuating, as likely as not, and developed its current state in proportion to the O2 levels on earth = the original global dead sea levels saturated with various salts. Its N-S B-Field current intensity most likely didn't have anything like the present value until all the lower salts were precipitated as today's coveted ores. How important is this then? Lang Hancock sat on the knowledge of Australia's iron ore wealth (40% global) for 8 years to become a multimillionaire, waiting for laws to change that would have prevented his ambitions. There are three things multinational corporations seek, markets (rich), labour (poor), resources (untaxed). Add up the consequences of the knowledge you ridicule, and the interests you are serving as strictly "mainstream". Who control it ... really? "How vile and despicable war seems to me! I would rather be hacked in pieces than take part in such an abominable business. My opinion of the human race is high enough that I believe this bogey would have disappeared long ago, had the sound sense of the peoples not been systematically corrupted by commercial and political interests acting through the schools and the press." Page 10 of... https://namnews.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/29289146-ideas-and-opinions-by-albert-einstein.pdf

Let me answer you this way, Acme. Science does well when the methods encouraged her are applied to a limited set of variable, or properties of reality. Kepp the others constant, set up a control, draw graphs of changes, find functions, attempt a model, make predictions from the model, test conformity = confirmation/refutation. The refutation side, though, has changed to, "throw in some extra conjectures" more and more ad nauseum because we are shining sanity not prone to error, and the new prophets of truth". Am I wrong? But in astronomy, geology, evolution, psychology, can we isolate the variables? Do we even know what they are? The whole is much more than the sum of its parts, like a light switch describes a computer, a huge collection of same, organised by what ... intelligence??? (Fred Hoyle) Look up the simplest DNA known and explain it. An tame orang-utan mimicking a world champion chess opponent has a better chance of winning by sheer accident. Consciousness is one step further and was once called spirit, and considered "the first cause and irreducible reality, from out of which, as and by its power, mind and matter proceed" - Sir Arthur Avalon (alchemy properly understood without "UBI LOCUTI SUMUS, IBI NIHIL DIXIMUS" to preserve it from Christian persecution before the reformation)! In this light, then, how is DOCTOR James Maxlow held in such low esteem, when crusts may thicken, and radioactively generated heat may not be liberated as effectively, especially with water (which now joints other lithosphere materials in the lave spewing from volcanoes) assists in cooling the surface (consider Krakatoa). This fact combines well in the once accepted explanation for the asteroids, as it retained more hydrogen in formation at the greater distance. Its replacement conjecture is up there with Enid Blyton's material, in my opinion.

Sensei, thank you for your calculation of 2.34 km^3 of air losing Oxygen per day. I don't know for sure but it does sound plausible. The Carboniferous had, due to rampant growth of huge moss (scale trees) on a single continent presumably covered in swamps, 30% atmospheric oxygen, and laid down the isolated carbon as our coal deposits. The following age (Permian) saw a series of ice ages and massive tectonic activity, and ended the Palaeolithic inexplicably, but for this scenario. Source materials for the conjectures, besides that already mentioned (Book of Life - edited by Stephen Jay Gould), are to be found here: http://ccgm.org/en/maps/93-carte-geologique-du-monde-a-125-000-000-9782917310045.html http://www.jamesmaxlow.com./main/ http://www.nexusmagazine.com/products/dvds/dvds-general/nexus-magazine-1987-2014-detail The first link provides a map that can be scanned to reveal the coloured isochrones(?) (basalt dating) of the Pacific, and more revealing than Google Earth. Clearly seen is the involvement of the Pacific Ridge in the formation of the Gulf of Mexico and onward as the San Andréa's fault, to re-join the continued "mid" ocean ridge northward back into the Pacific. The same may be discerned following the Indian ocean mid ocean ridge, and its effects, the Red Sea, the Mediterranean (hence Venice and various sunken archaeological treasures), and the Dead Sea (0.5 Km below sea level) & Jordan Valley continuation. James Maxlow (and J. Robert Oppenheimer - see Wiki -> PDF it and search for "Sanskrit") is (are???) considered wacko for his take on science, but current champion of the Geological side of my H2O explanation. Using the third link, you will find Dr. James Maxlow's articles in the Nexus material, and much more wacko stuff (e.g. Crop Circles regularly sampled year by year. That would make a good OT topic for someone interested in the frontiers of science).

I will try to answer your questions/statements #3 & #17, studio, but you do realise that you are placing me between a rock and a hard place. The short answer to #3, "As I understand it Mars is too cold and Venus is too hot" doesn't explain anything. So the water evaporates on Venus and turns to ice and falls off Mars? But if I attempt, as I have in parts, to write the step by step evolution of the oceans of earth from my perspective, they become what? "...longish outpourings of unrelated statements that may or may not be true [or relevant]". The "coherent flow of logic, explaining the reason for bringing them up" then, depends upon the goads, and nails fastened, as I am attempting, through examining existing beliefs, presenting facts, and waiting for questions and propositions worthy of further discussion. If the questions are worthy, I will answer them and use the opportunity to further this strategy (see #27). Short of this, I gain an overview of the requirements of participants and work on this (See #6). I wish I had the luxury of time and notoriety to write a book on it, especially in collaboration with the relevant authorities, but alas, I am a peasant. So here I am. But I do understand your wish that the information was logically structured and sequenced as a book may be. So let's begin here... Suppose that we are mistakenly assuming our oceans were generated by the earth from its original substance. Suppose that the earth does not have volcanoes spewing diluted sulphuric acid, but sulphur and its oxides (very dry). Suppose that Venus and Mars and Earth began with the same proportion of water. This seems indicated by the revelation that 180 MYA, the earth did not consist of one continuous ocean, when the radius was 55% of its present value. "The Geological Map of The World" would indicate this: http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/SC/pdf/IGCP40_CGMW_Rossi.pdf The need to presume subduct ion may be based on a false assumption that the earth's radius is constant. One fly in the ointment is explaining the source of water on earth as a continuous process (burnt solar wind). The 2 to 4 parts per million of uranium in the lithosphere would make the core an amalgam of much more U, just like Au in a pan with Hg is amalgamated. Now, considering that a set of fuel rods will power a city for 2 years, how hot is the core, and how is the heat released? And what is the relationship between radius, surface area, and volume? Exponentially increasing radius is, in fact, indicated. Our H2O may conceivably come from the sun, which could not originally steel it from the extremely distant gas giants as it did from the rocky planets much much closer.

The Official Edgar Cayce Readings are available on DVD-ROM from: http://officialedgarcaycereadings.com/ The reading 195-70, 10 means the 70th (psychic) reading given for individual 195, and the 10th paragraph comprising a question and the answer, at least in this case. Here the readings offer "...these then are thrown off, as was the moon from the earth, or as is the various satellites of the various planets, as well as the various effects out in space." The reading was given 9 MAY 1930. From my point of view, this better explains the synchronous rotation of the moon than "tidal drag", and also explains the thinner crust of the near side, which for me became confirmation of the Permian extinction as to such a cause. I did not know of the extreme differences of the near and far side beforehand. But the throwing off of the moon was earlier believed the cause of the Pacific Ocean before Pangaea was hypothesised, and even longer before Theia was invented. Also, Ganymede is locked in synchronous rotation with Jupiter, confirming Cayce's 1930 statements. This raises questions about tidal locking, because Jupiter has many moons that are not. If the moon's launch truly did cause the Permian extinction, halfway between now and the Cambrian Explosion, then the near side is 245 MY old, while the far side is, or was, the surface of the earth, and 4600 MY old. It is a fact that the ocean basins are basalt no older than the Jurassic (180 MY old) besides sediment, according to magnetic dating. Certainly the pattern of an increasingly wet Triassic and Jurassic followed by a very dry Cretaceous supports the idea of gradual flooding since launch, followed by rifting recommencing around the end of the Jurassic. Many huge creatures requiring water support for their mass became marine animals. The relieved pressure in the interim would have caused the flooding period.

This prima face explanation would satisfy most, but: SO3 + H2O --> H2SO4 and 100% concentrated H2SO4 is an extremely powerful dehydrating agent: (11H2SO4 + ) C12H22O11 --> (11H2SO4.H2O + ) 12C + heat Water poured into concentrated sulphuric acid will cost you your eyes, as the liberated heat will evaporate the water explosively. Even alcohol will not liberate the last 5% of water using a still, and requires metallic calcium. But fractional distillation is far more sophisticated than a blast of solar wind, and alcohol does not hold water like sulphuric acid, due the percentages attainable in the vapour pressures. This is to say, the H2O, H2SO$ and SO3 would have shared the same fate. The molten planet would have liberated all volatile oxides (CO2, SO3 etc.) from the metallic oxides, but when the Earth cooled for below the 500 C of Venus, these would have recombined (CaCO3, FeSO4 etc.). The original water of Venus is powerfully bound as fuming sulphuric, and the excess of SO3 indicates that sulphates far exceeded the water mole for mole. It seems fairly similar to the amount on Mars to me, certainly not an ocean worth. Even our early atmosphere consisted of combustible gases (H2S, CH4) and all oxygen was combined as CO2. Furthermore, prokaryotes (bacteria) can only survive in very oxygen depleted conditions (hot springs, brine, salt marsh, and today, the gut or decomposing organic matter). Cyanobacteria were first to liberate O2 from CO2 for their energy needs, and evolved under brine to become the stromatolite that slowly raised the level of a worldwide dead sea. The O2 meanwhile, burnt the solar wind and precipitated the various metallic ores by oxidation of dissolved lower salts, from 3900 MYA to 541 MYA. Then the unexplained Cambrian explosion happened, and lo and behold, so many early evolutions are strictly fresh water creations (insects, amphibians, mosses, ferns, fungi). The rifting that excites Mt. Etna, and created the Mediterranean must have created the first sink hole, and allowed fresh water life. Every ocean today has a mid-ocean ridge. The Pacific ridge though is misplaced as though the whole Americas have tipped, and becomes the San Andréa's. Fresh water was necessary for the energy cycle of Eukaryotes and their greater and more sophisticated energy needs. Mitocondria and chloroplasts were the means found in a fresh water and oxygen rich environment. Few know that these are prokaryotes living symbiotically in the 1000 x larger cells of the plant and animal kingdoms. Many customs are matriarchal, and rightly so, because our mitochondria are only from the maternal side, and often quite decisive (mitoclorions?)

Perhaps I should heed the moderators and leave off with the commentary. Could the trolls that have plagued me since I began do likewise, and, as asked by myself also, try very hard not to be nasty, despite the schoolyard reinforcement they have had to endure, before they became respectable scientists. Let me continue with the questioning then, for my enlightenment. Your links (yes, I have read them as promised) included the enlightened revelation that, via highly specialised evidence and reasoning, the conclusion was reached that Mars once had oceans flooding the planet. The concensus among the intelligentia is that the solar winds have blown of all the H2O, an hypothesis apparently set in very high MPA concrete. My question about the steeling of H2O from the H2SO4 + SO3 was ignored. So I will turn to Mars. Do you think that you may indulge me enough to check out this link - from the NASA APOTD offerings - "2015 February 09: Layered Rocks near Mount Sharp on Mars". What do you see? A shallow pool of water reflecting the sedimentary rock formations? Greater oceans than the world sports today were blown away, but this pool seems to be as indestructible as James Bond. How do we wriggle out of the gross inconsistency here? Why are anomalies simply an excuse to invent more speculative hypotheses than those which have spawned them? Lately, by all accounts, we have another such instance, in a long trail of such ad hoc science that began with ... you guess. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/10955749/Where-has-all-the-light-in-the-universe-gone.html I will quote from this source: "You know it's a crisis when you start seriously talking about decaying dark matter," Katz said" [Neal Katz, University of Massachusetts] This crisis may be averted very simply with the "A Steady State Theory" scenario, which ended with extreme prejudice, by blowing up the Higgs Boson and all his mates, using General Relativity and one universal force - electrostatic ALONE. Now here's the crunch. Every falsehood swallowed derails a great many truths that it invalidly contradicts. If there is no sanity forthcoming with this post, in the way of specific non-cut-and-paste responses, then I guess derailment city is not my town. In answer to Swansont, whom I actually admire for his candour as well as for his knowledge (I assume his sex is male like his character, apologies otherwise) there was a "speculative" (no less than much mainstream though) scenario following Dr. James Maxlow's Nexus articles on tectonic expansion, which instantly drew the crabs here and was canned. The "Can Other Scenarios Demonstrate Consistent Proof" pneumonic for "Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, Carboniferous, Permian" resulted from a quick study of Stephen Jay Gould's palaeontology "The Book Of Life". The first Nexus article did not cover water sources or radioactive heating of the earth. The second admitted the problems (for a Geologist) I had pre-empted, and acquired a knowledge base to investigate. I needed to know when photosynthesis began and uncovered much more, even the unexplained Permian extinction (no consistent scenario exists and quoting the book "A wealth of information does not necessarily settle matters when human ingenuity is interpreting the facts"). Edgar Cayce has given (195-70, 10) that the moon was thrown off from the earth together with other satellites of the solar system. Others atypically exist, in fact, with like synchronous rotation. He has also given that everything is made from what we know as "electricity", and other things mainstream science may be ignoring to their disadvantage, and the advantage of those who don't ignore it! There was the discussion of mathematics developed by myself for deriving a formula to rate mastery (e.g.. chess), based on the assumption that a "rating difference" and "probability" are related by an appropriately scaled and translated hyperbolic tangent curve. The derivation used innovative techniques I have never seen before, but simulation has demonstrated efficacy. http://www.swissimmaculate.com With these, my preeminent obscurity was trying to reach Dr. Maxlow and FIDE. So far as I can see, many unexplained astronomical and subatomic phenomena may dissolve in what is still available on this site (A Steady State Theory). They seem to dissolve from my limited perspective, but knowledge and resources beyond me are required for that decision. It does, however, occur to me that a more difficult resource for science to acquire is the uniquely human trait of CREATIVITY you call inductive reasoning. Like Einstein's c, a profound and apparently contradictory insight, there could be no E=mc^2 without it. So for what it's worth, if any of this is right, let's hope it makes for a better world for all.

If you want to hear more from me, put my other stuff back up. I want intelligent people to see it! Anyone can cut and paste, literally of figuratively. Most people cannot express opinions that are not a part of their social environment. Fewer still can create them. I know you are monitoring this. Serve the truth.

OK primate, so science has gone dark, and all you offer is to troll your competition. Wow. And where did my other stuff go? There is a law above that of the maker. Au revoir. Let's see how long you guys leave this stuff here.

I confess. I didn't look at the links (yet). But I did read the direct responses. Some very perhaps a little naïve, but thanx for the try, folks. The other stuff didn't blow my sox off. Now, without being nasty, do you think you can answer me at all? I have asked serious chemistry questions which you have plainy ignored. Your links are, to me, ALTERNATIVE SCENERIOS with the usual distinction of transient RESPECTABILITY. I don't have any of that!

Those are interesting explanations. The reason I ask is because I believe a possibility exists that water has, in fact, been accumulating here since the first cyanobacteria began generating oxygen. Fossil evidence indicates that both cyanobacteria, and rain, left evidence 3900 MYA. Also, banded iron formation and stromatolites developed from that time. If the solar wind is protons and electrons with high kinetic energy = temperature, my chemistry tells me that the protons will behave like hot hydrogen and combine with atmospheric oxygen, to be neutralised from the sea of electrons pervading the Earth. This not only explains the trapping of hydrogen by the Earth, where this gas (H2) has escape velocity at normal temperatures. Simultaneously, the auroras have an explanation for the colour variation N & S, and so do sprites, more red like Aurora Australis. While the solar wind is claimed to have stripped the inner planets of hydrogen as water, this seems again highly implausible. Venus has an atmosphere producing fuming sulphuric acid (H2SO4 + SO3) clouds and rain, and violent, extensive and continuous lightning. Again, my chemistry tells me that even concentrated sulphuric acid without the excess of trioxide (sulphuric anhydride) will not surrender water, it will break up sugar to steal it, and leave charcoal! Esters and organic nitro compounds explosive exploit this property in their manufacture. Could it be that during their formation, the inner planets could not retain hydrogen (and other lighter atoms) at the original temperatures of accumulated supernova matter, while the more distant planets could, against the central gravity of the forming sun? Lastly, this scenario suggests that a dry planet, not unlike mars, began to sport a rising highly saline sea, where only bacteria can survive, for the entire period 3900 MYA to the Cambrian explosion 541 MYA. Also such salinity would allow little dissolved oxygen, the nemesis of bacteria, but the bane of more complex life. Could it be that the first planetary rifting, (as with the mid ocean ridges, Lake Victoria or the Dead Sea) created the first salt water sink, and allowed fresh waters to develop then (541 MYA)? Today, stromatolytes only survive today in Shark Bay, Australia, and other highly saline waters around the globe. As for the deuterium enrichment? Well, the clouds hover between 5 to 20 miles up, and cosmic rays and energetic protons create carbon 14 from the higher N2 & O2 atmosphere, long before they reach the H2O. But please explain why the H+ does not form H2O with the O2 & O3 in that zone, while the H+ & e- plasma is being deflected and concentrated, to become a more visible reaction as the auroras. The sprites seem to indicate that the protons or H2O+ play a role in electrical storms. Maybe I don't have it right. Enlighten me. Especially about Venus!?

I have a question. Planets on either side of Earth have scanty water, but we have oceans of it. Why is this so?