|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
#262 new book Continental Drift and Plate Tectonic theory updated andbased on Atom Totality theory
First I am going to repeat a old post of mine and start this post as
#262 of a new book on Continental Drift theory. This is another Internet published book by me, amassing together old posts on the subject and compiling them into a book. Now the reason I am amassing this morning this book is because I had a partial dream about Cuba being at one time in the Pacific Ocean as per a Nature TV show. So let me get into the science in the next post but I want to establish this new book. And I used Google in a new way. I wanted to know a page number for this book and so I searched a_plutonium Continental Drift and Google spit out 261 hits. So I will take that answer as to the page number of this post as 262. As I revise this book into a 2nd edition I will have cut out all the slack in those 261 pages. Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.geo.geology, sci.astro From: "a_plutonium" Date: 25 Oct 2006 00:00:10 -0700 Local: Wed, Oct 25 2006 3:00 am Subject: NOVA's "Magnetic Storm" program; A.P.'s theory that Continental Drift is caused by the relative motion of the mantle versus crust Unbelievable timeing of this program, since I recently delved into Plate Tectonics and Continental Drift with a new theory to account for them. The new theory comes from the new discovery in the 1990s that the inner core is spinning faster than the rest of Earth. So if the inner core can spin faster than why not the mantle spinning faster than the ocean crust and why not the ocean crust spinning faster than the continental crust. Thus, explaining all of Plate Tectonics. What gets discarded or toned down to insignificance is Convection Heat theory and its silly Subduction. (1) how can you seriously accept subduction when the continental plates are less dense than the ocean crust or mantle. (2) how can you accept Convection Heat theory when it is impossible to model this theory. A theory that cannot be modeled is a false theory. And this program even showed them modeling the liquid outer core with (if I remember correctly), liquid sodium at Univ of Maryland. This program showed how the Earth Core is a dynamo, an electro- magnetic dynamo. Now in my previous threads on this subject I wanted to include Lightning Bolts from thunderstorms as a factor in Continental Drift. But perhaps lightning bolts also play some role in "magnetic reversal of poles" One of the points I want to mention, is that MAGNETIC REVERSAL is far more dangerous to human life than is Global Warming. With Global Warming we can easily solve it by adding reflectants into the atmosphere, in other words, imitating the volcano Pinatubo of the early 1990s. We simply require all airplanes to release some paper or thistle seed into the apogee of their flightpath. But we cannot tamper with Magnetic Reversal. The danger with Magnetic Reversal is that for thousands of years, Earth loses its shield against solar radiation. And why Mars is lifeless and its oceans disappeared because Mars lost its magnetic field and solar winds thus blew away its water. Never before have I seen such a great timing of NOVA broadcasting on a subject for which I just spent a month on many of the same issues. Perhaps the schedulers are reading the posts of A.P. and setting their schedule accordingly. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
#264 Continents form a triangle shape in their drifting; new bookContinental Drift and Plate Tectonic theory updated and based on Atom Totalitytheory
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
(snipped) If one were to draw three curved line segments on a sphere surface to represent each of the continents then it would be easy to draw Africa, South America and North America as elliptical triangles. This would hint of the forces applied to those continents in their movement during geological time. The idea is that the deep seeded forces cause a fanning out of the leading mass. So the longest side of the triangle is the west coast of North and South America. Now Australia would be shaped as a triangle also and shaped much like a miniature Africa only where Tasmania and the New Zealand Islands would have been the bottom horn of Africa, but it split off from Australia. As for Russia and Asia together they form a triangle and where North America is a miniature of Russia and all of Asia as one triangle. Thailand through to Indonesia would be the Mexico to Panama for North American plate. Europe is the least triangle shape because it is wedged in between the African and the Russia+Asia plate. I touched on some of the above in my earlier posts on this subject years back. However, I am more clear now with this idea of continents forming in the **ideal** as triangles. So mathematicians should be able to sit down and give the best elliptic triangle for South America, then for North America, then for Africa. etc. Then these mathematicians should be able to correlate the motion of those continents with the triangle shape they presently have. Thus, in other words, geometry has become a window into the science of geology. And physics should correlate geometry with the forces of motion of the continents. The reason South America and North America are the most triangular is because they are the very most active in plate tectonic motion. So we should be able to correlate physics of continent motion with the geometry of present day continents. Now as I wrote in past years, I believe electricity and magnetism have a huge role in Continental Drift, especially lightning bolts strikes on Earth. Whether these strikes act as lubricant or act more as a push propelling motion such as the vibrations atop a refrigerator that causes the iron pots to eventually migrate. Now today I spent some time thinking of some models to try out as a simulation and I came upon the idea of caked and dried Tide soap and when placed on a rough board that the soap cake as it scoots along the board rubs off pieces and chuncks of the soap cake. I started with a round soap cake and ended up with a triangle shaped soap cake with the longest side in the direction of motion which would be obvious as the debris remains elongates that side. Now I am interesting in duplicating this experiment on the top of the refrigerator with the vibrations of the refrigerator as the carrier of motion. So I place a caked piece of laundry powdered soap in the shape of a circle, using a knife to round off the cake. And place on the top middle of the refrigerator and check back days or weeks later to look at the "continental drift of Tide soap cake." Should it end up as a triangle shape? Some questions have to be asked of our actual continents. Are the southern tips of South America and North America and the southern tip of Africa and Asia (Thailand to Indonesia) and the southern tip of Australia (Tasmania and what was New Zealand). If we examine these southern tips of continents that were in the leeward drag zone of the continental plate, is the composition of those southern tips of a different sort of composition. As for my soap cake, the debris accumulates at the leeward end of the thrust forward. So as the cake crumbles or the continents get sheared that the debris or talis deposits end up at the southern tips of those continents. My preliminary guess is that the composition is somewhat different in that Mexico and Central America are heavily laden with volcanic rock. So is the southern tip of South America. Not sure about South Africa and not sure about whether Tasmania and New Zealand rock composition to the movement interface of the plates is different in composition. Indonesia is especially volcanic. Maybe the geologists have researched the rocks in the southern hemispheres and found them to be the talis or debris of the main plate of the continent having moved and then deposited the friction debris and thence metamorphosed again. So something I am looking for is the idea that the metamorphic rock of the southern tips of continental plates are rocks that are remetamorphosed and different from the main composition of the rocks of the plate. So that I expect after a month on top of the refrigerator that the Tide soap cake will have migrated closer to the edge and will have changed shape from a circle to a triangle and that the debris particles will have formed the longest line in the triangle. Having found out from my superconductivity book, that a book in science is a thousand times more interesting when a experiment is performed on the major premisses of the book. Now I am switching back to sci.astro from sci.math. Other planets have plate tectonics and so the above is pertinent to astronomers. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
#265 boundary of continental plate and ocean plate indicates Earth is10 billion years old; theory of how Earth got its water; new book ContinentalDrift and Plate Tectonic theory updated and based on Atom Totality theory
This book is going to get into trouble with my other book on "Growing
Earth Theory of Dirac Radioactivities" and what I have to do to straighten out this trouble is that the 2nd edition of this book has to coincide with the 2nd or 3rd edition of the other book so that I can disentangle what belongs more pertinent in each book. Everything about a scientist should be order, order and more order. Tree rings are beautiful for measuring the age of a tree. Radioactive measuring of the Earth's age is another beautiful measure. But there is a problem with Radioactive dating of Earth's age that was encountered in the 20th century and the first decade of the 21st. There was lack of full disclosure of all radioactive dating of samples. Whenever a scientist in the 20th and up to 2008 radioactive dated Earth and if their findings were higher than 5 billion years, their data was dismissed and nonprinted as error-data. The science print and press of 1900 to 2008 never allowed dates of Earth more than 5 billion years, even though some researchers measurement of Earth came to 10 billion years of age. I suspect there were a number of zircon crystals measured in 1900 to 2008 wherein the age of Earth was found to be closer to 10 billion years old rather than 5 billion years old. But the science news media of editors suppressed and repressed these findings and chalked them up as bad lab analysis. In my other book I talked about how Dirac said his new radioactivities whether additive or multiplicative would show itself in the distance of Moon to Earth and that if the Moon were moving away from Earth by about 2 cm per year that the Cosmos is multiplicative creation rate of new radioactivities. It was recently discovered that the Moon moves away with good accuracy. And I calculated that the discharge rate of the Amazon River at the mouth of the river to the ocean, is about the rate at which Earth was created via Dirac radioactivities. But, however, if the Earth is 10 billion years old, then we need a river whose discharge rate is a mere 1/2 of that of the Amazon. Can you name a river whose discharge rate is 1/2 of the Amazon? I think the Rhine river is 1/2 of the rate of discharge that the Amazon is. So if you metaphorically put a Rhine River out into space with its characteristic flow rate and let it flow for 10 billion years you end up with a spherical shaped planet consistenting of nothing but water of the same size as Earth itself. So the Dirac Radioactivities is a possible measuring tool of how old Earth really is. But now I want to talk about three more ways of dating Earth age. (1) Continental Drift Plates are lighter rocks than the rocks they rest on and move over. This boundary is metamorphic rock layer and a distinguishable boundary such as for example the Moho boundary is distinct. It takes time for planet Earth if formed in a Nebular Dust Cloud theory to have formed this distinct layer of the Plates. The Plate layer is existing over the entire globe so it is fully in tact and not something new. So how much time does a planet formed from a Nebular Dust Cloud that is hypothesized at 5 billion years ago, how long would it take for a newly formed planet that has none of this metamorphic boundary layer of continental plates to form that layer? Can it be formed in 5 billion years? I doubt it. The Growing Earth theory with its Dirac Radioactivities would guess the age of Earth as 10 billion years old and that it takes a planet at least 10 billion years to have a metamorphic plate boundary sitting atop a basalt underlayer boundary. (2) How did Earth get so much water? The idea that all of Earth's water comes from Comets was a good idea until it failed to pass the test of observation that the composition of heavy water on Earth does not match that of Comets. So here I offer a better Theory of How Earth Got Its Water. I speculate that Mars and nearby surrounding planets and moons held water until the Sun's radiation pushed the water into space and where the Earth acts as a trap to trap much of the water that escapes the other neighboring astro bodies. This escape mechanism is how the comets gain much of their water as the water slowy migrates outward and eventually accumulates into forming a Comet. Call it a Solar System Rainfall or Snowfall. Earth has weather that gives rain or snow. So here we have a Solar System that gives Rain or Snow to its planets and Sun. The Solar radiation expells water from its planets in which Earth traps some of that expelled water and some of the expelled water migrates out to the reaches of the Comets and forms a new Comet. So the question of age with water on Earth. Can we have a yearly accretion of Space Water of the size of the Rhine River flow for 10 billion years and thus account for our Oceans full of water? Indeed we can. Now this (2) about water and (1) about plate rock boundary differences is going to be heavily supported or dismissed by the new and recent findings by the robots on Mars. In other words, the amount of information from the planet Mars is going to solve many of our present day problems. (3) And this is related to the previous water evidence. Ever notice that planet Earth has alot of salt, especially in the oceans. Now if Earth was formed 5 billion years under the Nebular Dust Cloud theory could the oceans be as salty as they are today? And more important question, would the landmasses be as "acid of soils" not salty as they are today? Why is there so much salt on Earth and yet not so on other planets or satellites? Perhaps the answer is that the salt was carried to Earth along with the newly arriving interplanetary water that filled our oceans. So if the Nebular Dust Cloud is true with its 5 billion year reckoning, does not explain how the continents are very much salt free and the oceans so full of salt. Again we await data and information from Mars. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
#266 new theory of how Earth got its water; new book ContinentalDrift and Plate Tectonic theory updated and based on Atom Totality theory
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
(2) How did Earth get so much water? The idea that all of Earth's water comes from Comets was a good idea until it failed to pass the test of observation that the composition of heavy water on Earth does not match that of Comets. So here I offer a better Theory of How Earth Got Its Water. I speculate that Mars and nearby surrounding planets and moons held water until the Sun's radiation pushed the water into space and where the Earth acts as a trap to trap much of the water that escapes the other neighboring astro bodies. This escape mechanism is how the comets gain much of their water as the water slowy migrates outward and eventually accumulates into forming a Comet. Call it a Solar System Rainfall or Snowfall. Earth has weather that gives rain or snow. So here we have a Solar System that gives Rain or Snow to its planets and Sun. The Solar radiation expells water from its planets in which Earth traps some of that expelled water and some of the expelled water migrates out to the reaches of the Comets and forms a new Comet. So the question of age with water on Earth. Can we have a yearly accretion of Space Water of the size of the Rhine River flow for 10 billion years and thus account for our Oceans full of water? Indeed we can. Now this (2) about water and (1) about plate rock boundary differences is going to be heavily supported or dismissed by the new and recent findings by the robots on Mars. In other words, the amount of information from the planet Mars is going to solve many of our present day problems. Now I should have clarified the above to a large extent. Assuming Dirac Radioactivities as true we can thus calculate how much water is created every year on Mercury, on Venus, on Mars and on all planets and satellites in our Solar System, even the Sun. We can calculate how much water is created on every astro body via Dirac Radioactivities. This sounds magical to most, that water is created from out of nowhere and suddenly appears on the planet or body. Well that is the Dirac Radioactivity and why the Nebular Dust Cloud theory is a fake. So we can do those calculations of Dirac Radioactivity and then we can estimate how many water molecules were created on the Moon last year. Then we can calculate how the Solar System with its motions and with its solar radiation forces some of the water molecules created on the Moon (or created on Mars or Venus or Mercury) end up entering Earth's surface. So the Dirac Radioactivity creates new water on the Moon last year and we calculate how many of those water molecules end up on the Earth's surface. We thus can estimate how much water was created on all the bodies of our Solar System and how much of that water ended up on planet Earth. Keep in mind also, that Earth itself has some newly created Dirac Radioactivity water itself. But because Earth is a sheltered planet by its Magnetosphere, that the water that enters Earth remains on Earth. Now in the calculation of Dirac Radioactivities as to newly created water where it did not exist on a planet before, we are guided by Cosmic Abundances. How much water exists in the vast swathes of the Universe at large? We find out this relative abundance and then we apply that to the Solar System. Let us say that water is 1% of cosmic abundance relative to all other molecules. Then we can roughly say that of the newly created matter via Dirac Radioactivity on the Moon surface that 1% of that newly created matter for a given year, that 1% is water. I have little doubt that planet Earth and Mars were not planets some 10 billion years ago but rather were satellites of some large planet which has long since disappearred because it was swallowed up by the Sun leaving Earth and Mars to wander and become themselves a planet. And that Mars had as vast of oceans as what Earth now has but as it wandered further away from the Sun than did Earth, that the Martian Oceans were radiated out into space and where Earth caught much of the water of Mars. And where many of the Comets today were long ago Martian water. We can view the Comet belt as similar to a Earth weather pattern, where the water of our solar system finds its migratory way out to the comet belt where that water solidifies into Comets and thence starts to make a journey back into the heart of the Solar System. P.S. I am grateful to have been born in a time period where I am the only scientist of astronomy and geology who was gifted not only in logic but in enough imagination to venture into the unknown. There is not a single scientist alive other than myself that is gifted in both logic and imagination at the same time. Much of what I said above will be found false, but some of it will be found true. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
#267 bonus to my new theory of how Earth got its water; new bookContinental Drift and Plate Tectonic theory updated and based on Atom Totalitytheory
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
Now I should have clarified the above to a large extent. Assuming Dirac Radioactivities as true we can thus calculate how much water is created every year on Mercury, on Venus, on Mars and on all planets and satellites in our Solar System, even the Sun. We can calculate how much water is created on every astro body via Dirac Radioactivities. This sounds magical to most, that water is created from out of nowhere and suddenly appears on the planet or body. Well that is the Dirac Radioactivity and why the Nebular Dust Cloud theory is a fake. So we can do those calculations of Dirac Radioactivity and then we can estimate how many water molecules were created on the Moon last year. Then we can calculate how the Solar System with its motions and with its solar radiation forces some of the water molecules created on the Moon (or created on Mars or Venus or Mercury) end up entering Earth's surface. So the Dirac Radioactivity creates new water on the Moon last year and we calculate how many of those water molecules end up on the Earth's surface. We thus can estimate how much water was created on all the bodies of our Solar System and how much of that water ended up on planet Earth. Now I should mention a terrific bonus to my new theory above as to how Earth has all of this water and where the other planets look like dry parched deserts. The bonus is that this new theory also explains why there exists this confounding Cometary Belt of huge chunks of ice that periodically migrate through our Solar System. So my new theory not only explains how and why Earth has so much water as it is a Magnetosphere trap that traps the newly created water of Dirac Radioactivities. But explains that the Cometary belt is a second solar system trap. Now I have to do some researching into the Comet belt to see how it is a special feature of our Solar System in that it traps water that was created on the other bodies of our Solar System. Consider the Comet Belt as the gutter system of the Solar System. That water is created via Dirac Radioactivities in the star and planets of our solar system and from the radiation push of that water to the Comet belt acting as a gutter and then reforming that frozen water into Comets. So my new theory not only explains how Earth is the only Ocean planet (perhaps Europa has oceans but the latest news seems to suggest water on Europa is small) as the only Magnetosphere trapping of water, but explains fully why there is a Comet Water Belt. So I have to run and research the Comet belt and to what extent Europa has oceans. Also there was news that the poles of the Moon may have underground water. If so, I would have to ask the question as to why the poles? Are the poles better protected from solar radiation dispersal of water? Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
#267 bonus to my new theory of how Earth got its water; new bookContinental Drift and Plate Tectonic theory updated and based on Atom Totalitytheory
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
#268 explaining how Comet water has double the amount of heavy waterand explaining how Earth got its water; new book Continental Drift and PlateTectonic theory updated and based on Atom Totality theory
According to Michael Mumma in a PBS NOVA show, Comets contain twice as
much heavy water as does water on Earth and so comets should not be the source of Earth's water. But let me apply some logic to this idea of comets and how Earth gained so much water. If planets were biological species wanting a name, then Earth should rightfully be called the watery planet. But applying logic, which Mumma should have applied since he seems to be stuck on this idea. We see alot of scientists who fall in love with an idea but unable to apply logic that would or should coax them away from the idea because the logic shows how impractical. It is easy to see how Mumma would have fallen for this idea that Earth water source was comets. Fallen because the simplicity of comets as the source. But here the logic steps into the picture and makes the idea of Comets as Earth's water source look rather absurd. Previously the idea of comets looked like simplicity and a winner, but applying logic makes the idea of comets look silly and absurd. The logical question that Mumma should have asked himself before falling in love with a Comet Model for Earth's water is how does the Comets gain all their water and why are they mostly a bag of flying water in the solar system? So you see, that Mumma falls in love with a comet model that by its sheer simplicity would explain Earths vast watery surface, but then a bit of logic would ask, "well, if comets are the source of Earth's water, then what is the source for the comets water?" So the logic makes the Comet theory look rather silly, afterall. So that Mumma should have realized that to answer how Earth got a hold of all of its water would likely answer how do comets get a hold of so much water that they are mostly composed of a flying ball of ice. So to answer how Earth got its water will likely be the answer as to how Comets get their water. That is the pretty thing about logic, it makes us think better and come up with better answers. So according to Mumma, the water in comets is about double the heavy water as found in the water on Earth. So let me place a jab of an answer as to how Comets and Earth gained their waters respectively. My theory of Solar System Water Gains: I use the Dirac Radioactivities theory for the creation of our Solar System, so if you are going to use the old stale and fake theory of Nebular Dust Cloud you will not understand much of anything. So Dirac envisioned that our Solar System started perhaps 10 billion years ago with seed-matter. Where the Sun and a number of planets were seeds of matter that weighed perhaps a milligram. And through Dirac Radioactivities (see his book "Directions in Physics") these seeds would collect more mass and matter by this radioactivity. Before too long the Sun some 10 billion years ago would be the size of a grapefruit and the planets the size of a BB. As the years went by they would grow by this radioactivity. We see it today in the flood of cosmic rays and gamma ray bursts that constantly impinge on the bodies in our solar system. Where is the source of the radioactivity? The nucleus of the Atom Totality itself. So given 10 billion years time we have our present day Solar System accreted from that radioactivity. Now how does Earth end up with so much water and where the Comets are mostly ice balls double the amount of heavy water? Well water is created by Dirac Radioactivities uniformily per existing mass. So most of the water created is in the Sun and Jupiter since they are the most massive but the water created in the Sun and Mercury, Venus, Mars and other planets does not stay put on those planets due to solar radiation and are driven off those bodies except for Earth where there is a Magnetosphere. So Earth is like a huge gutter of the water that was created on other astro bodies nearby and which ends up intersecting the orbit of Earth and the Magnetosphere keeps the water here. Now the Comet belt is another Gutter Effect, in that the Comet belt traps alot of this interplanetary and solar water. So why is it twice the amount of heavy water than the Earth's water? That is easy to answer with Dirac radioactivity which created the water in the first place and is adding more radioactive newly created mass to the already existing mass of the water molecules in the Cometary Belt. So as this water traverses past Earth and not trapped by Earth makes its long journey out to the Comet Belt where it is then reformed into huge ice balls and while it is making this reformulation, that the Dirac radioactivities has ample time to add on extra neutrons to the nucleus of the water atoms. Here is an experiment that some future scientists will perform when space travel is much easier than today. Where we take a mass of heavy element such as uranium and we refine it very pure so we know the nuclide composition to a very high precision and we subject this material to a long trek across the Solar System and wait for it to return. What we should find from this voyager is that some of the uranium atoms are now contaminated with atoms of plutonium. How could this be? Because in the journey the Dirac radioactivities created some extra neutrons on some atoms of uranium. So all I have to do for the above is find out more about the volume of space that the Comets dwell in and find out how that volume can act as a Gutter Effect of the water created in the inner solar system that gets pushed out into this Cometary belt. For Earth we already know how it acts as a gutter in that the Magnetosphere traps the incoming water. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
#269 a pretty homegrown experiment that can be conducted duringreading this book; new book Continental Drift and Plate Tectonic theoryupdated and based on Atom Totality theory
Now I have two hardened cakes of Tide powder soap about the size of
the palm of my hand situated at 190 mm from the edge of the top of my refrigerator. So the refrigerator acts as the prime mover and the cakes act as a continental plate. In previous years the vibrations of the refrigerator would eventually move pots to fall off. Now I use the vibrations as the continental drift. Now I do not know how well these cakes imitate continental plates. But I am curious to find out what happens to them. There maybe some problem with the cakes becoming too dry and thus crumbling. But I will give it a watch. What I hope to find is as the cakes migrate to the edge that they become broader in crumble pieces just as North America and South America became broader on the West Coasts. Leaving a triangle shape for North and South America. So I am hoping to see some resemblance of the Tide cakes with the shape of the continents. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
#270 yes, my Tide-cakes imitating South-America; new book ContinentalDrift and Plate Tectonic theory updated and based on Atom Totality theory
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
Now I have two hardened cakes of Tide powder soap about the size of the palm of my hand situated at 190 mm from the edge of the top of my refrigerator. So the refrigerator acts as the prime mover and the cakes act as a continental plate. In previous years the vibrations of the refrigerator would eventually move pots to fall off. Now I use the vibrations as the continental drift. Now I do not know how well these cakes imitate continental plates. But I am curious to find out what happens to them. There maybe some problem with the cakes becoming too dry and thus crumbling. But I will give it a watch. What I hope to find is as the cakes migrate to the edge that they become broader in crumble pieces just as North America and South America became broader on the West Coasts. Leaving a triangle shape for North and South America. So I am hoping to see some resemblance of the Tide cakes with the shape of the continents. Yes, I have some good news to report for there has been some vibration motion that has affected the cakes position. The cakes are 80 x 30mm round and placed 190mm from edge and today they are 185mm from edge and they have a talus deposit of loose grains of Tide soap in the southern direction that is 50mm long. So what the cakes are beginning to outline is a Triangle shape having started as a round cake and with the talus deposit they are outlining a triangle. I expect as the cakes migrate closer to the edge of the refrigerator, that they will look more and more like a South America or North America or Africa or Asia. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
evidence gathered so far that supports the Atom Totality theory and shows Big Bang to be a fake | a_plutonium | Astronomy Misc | 6 | January 2nd 07 10:45 PM |
In an Atom Totality E = mcc, but in a Big Bang or String theory E = mccc and higher | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 18 | July 30th 06 12:18 PM |
forces in a Big Bang theory versus forces in an Atom Totality theory | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | January 12th 06 08:41 AM |
editing Wikipedia entry of Archimedes Plutonium's Atom Totality Theory | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 2 | July 1st 05 06:36 PM |