Jump to content

Foundational New Theories


Clay Gillespie

Recommended Posts

One is Ejection Theory, that the Earth was ejected from the sun. Two is Deflation Theory, that the moon was ejected from the earth shortly after the earth was ejected from the sun. These theories discredit Ram Pressure Theory by reframing crater impacts as gas and/or substance vents resulting from initial conditions of a molten state. Ejection Theory applies to all heavenly bodies as having their place in the Solar System as the result of ejection including asteroids, and showing the pop marks on planets and asteroids as the venting of gases and substances in the case of visible splatter. Ejection Theory further states that molten planetary ejection into the conditions of space precipitated the lunar ejection of the observed moons. Ejection Theory frames the moon as being like a musket ball removed from a forge.

74B9C53A-FC75-48AC-966A-7883D6A2D8AA.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evidence is where the moon, with no significant atmosphere has no trace of meteorites that are all perfectly round and leave flat bottoms, with no angular hits and large areas of the seas being completely missed by mysterious meteorites, or it arrived there by a forming magnetic relationship with the earth, took place molten and those are gas vents or in the case of visible splatter substance vents. The below picture is of a “crater” (Gas vent) that formed while the surface was still molten from ejection from the sun. Note that’s stone. The other is classified as a crater because there is no molten activity.

E853639D-8435-4AE6-B04D-F68D6657DF33.jpeg

89F1CF4A-A9DB-443A-B48B-431321E5E23C.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Clay Gillespie said:

Evidence is where the moon, with no significant atmosphere has no trace of meteorites that are all perfectly round and leave flat bottoms, with no angular hits

Before l try to comment, can you clarify the above? What is it the evidence say regarding angular hits? And according to what source?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Clay Gillespie said:

and large areas of the seas being completely missed by mysterious meteorites

Anyone who has driven a motor car will know that the insect imapacts build up on the front windscreen and grille, not on the side or back windows.

The first picuture in your second post looks fabricated to me.

Tell us about its progeny please.

In fact providing details of all of them would be better.

Edited by studiot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here’s evidence, the picture shows a raised from the surface crater. That’s a vent that didn’t pop. By the laws of common sense you can’t say a meteorite hits the surface of the moon and causes a raise of the surface area simultaneously dispersing its mass into oblivion. The one on the left is raised the one on the right recessed. The picture of the asteroid has pops from a molten state ejection. The other picture is one of Saturns moons, I theorize it stopped ejecting material in the smooth regions. The pictures were obtained from google images.

8760F2C1-E421-4678-B4AF-048FC0C61A13.jpeg

0C545681-9C3E-49BF-AB77-B1E4FA13DFD3.jpeg

C2098349-132B-459E-BA72-24B613DAFF2C.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Citations needed. O.K you can cite me.

O.k up till now have classified this the vent in the picture below as a crater, but pay attention to the smooth basin and visible splatter. The images we have obtained from Mars support Ejection Theory. Now notice a secondary but smaller “crater” (Vent) formed under the same local conditions.

O.k here the Zunil “Crater” (Mars) Pay attention to the splatter patter, lack of residual meteorite, and perturbance of the surrounding surface area. This could have only formed under molten conditions which is agree, I’m saying I can explain why we’re missing all those mysterious meteorites. Because Mars was ejected in a molten state from the Sun.

F3B62C07-D1BD-4F51-BD38-33411B988D7F.png

34F8268F-DC87-4D5F-95DB-71EE2CA1DC78.png

Also note about the butterfly “crater” (Vent) the splatter is inconsistent with the supposed angle of impact. But consistent with a bubble perforation with this shape.

Edited by Clay Gillespie
Clairification
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you ever considered composition. The Earth cannot originate from the sun. Completely different elements. So you can forget your first hypotheses of the Earth being ejected by the Sun.

Secondly there is evidence that the moon originated from a previous collision by another planet. 

 These miniscule crater hits cannot be used as evidence for the origin of the Earth or the moon. The impact zones are far too small. Every impact zone you have shown would correspond to either an asteroid or a comet. In several cases you can see the scatter patterns.

An outgassing volcanic activity has different patterns. Ie the very curvature of the crater itself. 

 

 

 

Edited by Mordred
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Have you ever considered composition. The Earth cannot originate from the sun. Completely different elements. So you can forget your first hypotheses of the Earth being ejected by the Sun.

Secondly there is evidence that the moon originated from a previous collision by another planet. 

 

Of course I’ve consider composition. You think you know what’s below the suns atmosphere. It’s a violent constant electrical storm from a molten surface to filament like atmosphere. And thank God cause we could really use the light. Well that’s not my moon theory. Minuscule, really, there kind of big, I agree they could correspond to meteorite hits, see any?  Yes I see the splatter pattern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They always hit straight on, in disappearing meteorite land. Well don’t you think that’s odd. I mean what are the odds. They all round back there in magical meteorite time.

And what this grouping of, I can barely write it “raised impact craters” 

5CBD2E5C-2E98-4B06-8578-8B3AB92205ED.jpeg

Now you better start citing, because it’s a hell of a lot of he said she said to dispel what directly presents to common sense.

Now ask yourself what’s missing from the above picture. Impact craters that create depth, so that if you wanted to explain away the above picture by volcanic activity, you still need to answer why there are no, depressed impact craters caused by non volcanic activity.

You can site me there, buddy boy.

If you want to know more about it, right click it, or hold your finger on it, and use the, search google for this image, option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok I got the point, literally. So who are you for, the magic water bringing meteorite people, or water as the result of a molten state directly following ejection. The oil is the decomposition of a period of life carried below the surface by, I don’t know rain water, than sealing itself most times in high pressure caverns that I don’t know geyser. Or for the oil is the result of the initial conditions of a molten planet directly following a solar planetary ejection. 

If it’s the magic meteorite people your missing the strength of Ejection Theory, it’s universal in scope. How big did you say those suns at the center are, maybe a better question were.

9 hours ago, Clay Gillespie said:

 Citations needed. O.K you can cite me.

O.k up till now have classified this the vent in the picture below as a crater, but pay attention to the smooth basin and visible splatter. The images we have obtained from Mars support Ejection Theory. Now notice a secondary but smaller “crater” (Vent) formed under the same local conditions.

O.k here the Zunil “Crater” (Mars) Pay attention to the splatter patter, lack of residual meteorite, and perturbance of the surrounding surface area. This could have only formed under molten conditions which is agree, I’m saying I can explain why we’re missing all those mysterious meteorites. Because Mars was ejected in a molten state from the Sun.

F3B62C07-D1BD-4F51-BD38-33411B988D7F.png

34F8268F-DC87-4D5F-95DB-71EE2CA1DC78.png

Also note about the butterfly “crater” (Vent) the splatter is inconsistent with the supposed angle of impact. But consistent with a bubble perforation with this shape.

Now I’ll go a step further here, at the angle this mystery meteorite is reported to have hit at it would not be subject to the far fetched ideas surrounding Ram pressure, so where’s the meteorite?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Clay Gillespie said:

 Citations needed. O.K you can cite me.

!

Moderator Note

I am unaware of your credentials, and in any case citations implies peer-reviewed literature. 

Besides, anyone who cites the “law” of common sense has damaged their credibility at the outset. This is a science site. We require scientific references and evidence.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Clay Gillespie said:

Hey bubby boy, those pictures are the evidence, not siting anyone else here dim wit, I’m proving My theories, not a list of he said she said. Now if your interested in angular hits formulate a reasonable position.

!

Moderator Note

And this is not going to fly

 
2 minutes ago, Clay Gillespie said:

The common sense just keeps coming. My writing is both a scientific reference and evidence, and I’ve seen one or two near peers.

!

Moderator Note

And we’re done. Do not bring this topic up again

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/5/2019 at 8:11 AM, Clay Gillespie said:

They always hit straight on, in disappearing meteorite land. Well don’t you think that’s odd. I mean what are the odds.

In case anyone is wondering, the angle of incidence is irrelevant (except for grazing angles): 

Quote

At the moment an asteroid collides with a planet, there is an explosive release of the asteroid's huge kinetic energy. The energy is very abruptly deposited at what amounts to a single point in the planet's crust. This sudden, focused release resembles more than anything else the detonation of an extremely powerful bomb. As in the case of a bomb explosion, the shape of the resulting crater is round: ejecta is thrown equally in all directions regardless of the direction from which the bomb may have arrived.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-are-impact-craters-al/

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.