An Unsuspected Symmetry to the Universe

 Earth Mother Our Womb of Life describes the Earth and the Solar System as living structures – not as a metaphor, but actually alive. We are alive because the Earth is alive, we have consciousness because the Earth has consciousness. The book explains how this is possible, simply by describing how the system works. That’s the beauty of it – you can recognise the truth of the explanation as the predictions it makes come true.

acorn-oak_tree_auctionIf someone shows you a seed and says it will grow into a mighty oak, you may be doubtful, especially if you have never seen the seed of an oak tree. Do you accept the claim on faith alone? What if the person shows you what the seedling will look like, what the young oak tree will look like – in effect plots out the whole growth cycle of the oak tree and then tells you to plant the seed to see for yourself. If the seed grows just as the person told you it would, this will help to convince you of the truth of his words. So too do the predictions in the book convince you of the truth of its words as they become real.

But there is one big difference between the seed of a oak and the explanation in the book – we believe that seeds can turn into mighty trees. We may not be sure whether the seed will produce an oak or a carrot or a carnation – but the notion that a seed can grow is acceptable. Presently in science, we do not accept that the Earth is alive, that the Solar System is alive, so the signs of life, of structure and of growth are all too often unrecognised.

P1170058

Aug 2012 issue of New Scientist magazine: “The spirals that don’t make sense”

However things are changing – more and more scientists are discovering structure and order in the universe which go against their current understanding. The pic above shows a 2012 New Scientist article entitled, The spirals that don’t make sense. It says that scientists have identified an unexpected pattern to the universe – namely it spins to the left! I quote:

“It is the kind of mystery that could keep a cosmologist up at night: the discovery of a non-random pattern in the structure of the universe. Now fresh evidence for an ‘axis of asymmetry’, along which many more spiral galaxies seem to spin one way than the other, threatens to undermine our understanding of the cosmos.”   

“The observation is so strange that it’s difficult to interpret its meaning,” says Shamir [Lawrence Technological University]. “A pattern in the structure of the universe at such a large scale is not something that we expect to see.

This implies a net spin for the universe – but what set it spinning, and what is it spinning relative to?” 

Nature is no stranger to surprise asymmetries. Amino acids are more often left-handed than right, while all subatomic neutrinos that have been observed have a left-handed spin.

It’s good to look outside the bound of accepted ideas.” ~ James Peebles of Princeton University, a pioneer in the field of physical cosmology.

If the universe does contain such an axis, it would contradict our current view of the cosmos.

[Read the full New Scientist article in full by clicking on the image below:]

P1170063

Aug 2012 issue of New Scientist magazine: “The spirals that don’t make sense” Full article

In and of itself this discovery may not seem so important. But it is one of many recent examples of a surprising order and structure in the universe that is being uncovered. For example: on 19 November 2014 the European Space Agency discovered a ‘spooky’ alignment of super-massive black holes:

New observations with ESO’s Very Large Telescope (VLT) in Chile have revealed alignments over the largest structures ever discovered in the Universe. A European research team has found that the rotation axes of the central supermassive black holes in a sample of quasars are parallel to each other over distances of billions of light-years. The team has also found that the rotation axes of these quasars tend to be aligned with the vast structures in the cosmic web in which they reside.

“The first odd thing we noticed was that some of the quasars’ rotation axes were aligned with each other — despite the fact that these quasars are separated by billions of light-years,” said Professor Hutsemékers.

The alignments in the new data, on scales even bigger than current predictions from simulations, may be a hint that there is a missing ingredient in our current models of the cosmos,” concludes Dominique Sluse.

The researchers estimate that the probability that these alignments are simply the result of chance is less than 1%.

Could the universe be more than just left-over debris from the Big Bang?

Our scientific history shows that we tend to underestimate, overlook or we are simply blind to order and structure in nature until our technology improves enough for us to recognise it.

Have found secret of DNA, love Daddy

Have found secret of DNA, love Daddy

For example, one hundred years before the discovery of the double-helix structure of DNA the cell was thought to be nothing more than a few chemicals in jelly – it was not even considered worthy of study. The cell was believed to be the simplest component in an organism – the brick that builds the Taj Mahal of the body. Now that view has flipped on its head. Now we realise that the cell is more complex than any of the organs it builds, more complex than the body itself – we now believe that the Taj Mahal must be contained in the cell for life to exist at all.

Our scientific history shows us that it is common for us to see nothing, until we recognise something. It is common for us to see chaos, until we recognise order. This recognition may come long before we ‘see’ anything – the double-helix structure was uncovered by Crick and Watson in 1953, but it was photographed for the first time in 2012!

DNA Photographed for the first time in 2012

DNA Photographed for the first time in 2012 by Enzo de Fabrizio, a physics professor at the Magna Graecia University.

Could it be happening again? Are we underestimating the structure of the cosmos? Most certainly. But how much and in what way? Only with time, improvements in our technology and the boldness of open and inquiring minds can we ever know.

james_jeans1Sir James Jeans, Opening paragraph, Physics and Philosophy (1943):

“Science usually advances by a succession of small steps, through a fog in which even the most keen-sighted explorer can seldom see more than a few paces ahead. Occasionally the fog lifts, an eminence is gained, and a wider stretch of territory can be surveyed—sometimes with startling results. A whole science may then seem to undergo a kaleidoscopic rearrangement, fragments of knowledge sometimes being found to fit together in a hitherto unsuspected manner. Sometimes the shock of readjustment may spread to other sciences; sometimes it may divert the whole current of human thought.”

 

In an earlier post: The Birth of a Solar System I discuss how the book, Earth Mother Our Womb of Life describes the beginning of our solar system, by stating:

Solar systems originate from the material which is ejected out of a supernova, an exploded sun. I use the word “explosion” as a “burst of life,” and not as an uncontrolled explosion of a human device. A sun explodes and material is hurled into space. This material, or “solar ejecta,” forms a colorful halo, a living cloud, a luminous radiance of microorganisms, vapor, and rarified gas – a nebula.

God’s invisible hands gather the material in the nebula into planets. The exploded sun forms a powerful vortex at the center of the nebula which sucks back some material, and a new, smaller sun is formed.

And now in a November 2014 article entitled “Autopsy Of Supernova’s Aftermath Yields Surprising Results” that is exactly what scientists have discovered – a small young star forming in the centre of a supernova!

Pictured is an outline of the and inner structure of the supernova SN1987A, as seen with the Hubble Space Telescope (green/blue contours), on top of Almaa observations of the remnant at 345 GHz (red/orange).

Pictured is an outline of the and inner structure of the supernova SN1987A, as seen with the Hubble Space Telescope (green/blue contours), on top of Almaa observations of the remnant at 345 GHz (red/orange).

Quoting from the article:

Giovanna Zanardo of the International Centre for Radio Astronomy Research (ICRAR) in Perth, Western Australia said: “Our observations with the ATCA and ALMA radio telescopes have shown signs of something never seen before, located at the center of the remnant. It could be a pulsar wind nebula, driven by the spinning neutron star, or pulsar, which astronomers have been searching for since 1987.”

It’s amazing that only now, with large telescopes like ALMA and the upgraded ATCA, we can peek through the bulk of debris ejected when the star exploded and see what’s hiding underneath.

As written in Earth Mother Our Womb of Life:

After being raised within a particular worldview, it is difficult to step out of it, seeing the world in an entirely new light; one in which the Earth is a great living being filled with the life, consciousness, and power of God, from whom we are given life and all we possess; one where the Earth has been carrying us through the ages, evolving us from stage-to-stage toward a perfected form in the heavenly orbit of the Morning Star. But this understanding is what we need to safely travel through this Purification Time.

When approaching new and different knowledge, it is best to keep our minds open, as we did as children, permitting new information to find its rightful place in our minds and hearts. We are being asked, “who has ears to hear?”

"Whatever divinity he [Einstein] saw in the universe, he saw in the sense of order manifested in nature."

Einstein’s description of God: “Whatever divinity he [Einstein] saw in the universe, he saw in the sense of order manifested in nature.”

Purification Time: Is the Earth in Labour?

Mk’s bk pg 74-75 – Is the Earth in Labour? Evidence of Earth’s rotation slowing down.

Is the Earth in Labour? Evidence of Earth’s rotation slowing down.

In the post Purification Time – Earth Changes I give evidence of the following changes:

  • a sharp increase in number and intensity of earthquakes;
  • unexplained energy output from the Core;
  • a slowing down of the Earth’s rotation; and
  • a weakening of the Earth’s magnetic field.

I’m writing about it again because there is more recent evidence of great geological unrest. The video below shows global seismic activity for 30 days between March and April 2014. And note there were nineteen 6.0M+ earthquakes, seven 7.0M+ earthquakes and two 8.0M+ events!! This is an incredible amount of earthquakes! Please have a look at the video below for more detail.

Mk's bk pg 30-31: Weddell Sea - Earth's Yoni

The Weddell Sea – Earth’s Yoni

In the post The Weddell Sea in Antarctica: The Earth’s Yoni, I give evidence of the warming of the deep waters of the Weddell Sea – where the Earth’s Core is predicted to emerge – and explain how these changes are causing global climactic instability.

Since writing that post last year the West Antarctic ice sheet has become even more unstable. On 12 May 2014  a news story broke from NASA – The “Unstable” West Antarctic Ice Sheet:

“The new finding that the eventual loss of a major section of West Antarctica’s ice sheet “appears unstoppable” was not completely unexpected by scientists who study this area. The study, led by glaciologist Eric Rignot at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California, and the University of California, Irvine, follows decades of research and theory suggesting the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is inherently vulnerable to change.”

The video below by NASA explains the recent finding of unstable conditions in Antarctica:

And yet another recent news story caught my eye (see pic below) from the Times 11 May 2014 – Antarctic Ice threatened by undersea volcano!

“Antarctica’s ice sheets may face a far more imminent threat than climate change: scientists have found a new volcano forming a mile under the ice, which is threatening a full eruption. The volcano seems to be part of a much bigger volcanic system that is generating earthquakes and releasing heat into the ice above.

The scientists believe the activity is caused by a volcanic hotspot – a giant blob of superheated rock rising from deep within the Earth. It could mean the area is a rift zone, where the Earth’s tectonic plates are pulling apart…

There are six giant glaciers in West Antarctica, with evidence suggesting they are all flowing much faster than in the past, releasing 77% more water a year than in 1973. The causes are not understood but scientists say climate change is a likely factor.”

The Times 11 May 2014 - Antarctic ice threatened by undersea volcano

The Times 11 May 2014 – Antarctic ice threatened by undersea volcano

Quoting from Earth Mother Our Womb of Life and the Coming New Heaven (and the clue is in the title):

Our Earth Mother is now in labor. The increasingly severe weather and geological disturbances are more than what most scientists believe; they are birth pangs originating from deep within the heart of the Earth. The Earth is laboring to birth what some native peoples have referred to as Her Egg (Her Core), which will emerge from the Earth’s birth canal in an Antarctic sea.

Mikes bk pg 75

“I think people have become very jaded and desensitized to news about earthquakes, to the point that anything under 8 is regarded as inconsequential.” (post in ATS Forum)

 

Our Living Universe: Seen and Unseen

Quoting Earth Mother Our Womb of Life:

The universe is alive. It is a living universe whose life and awareness ensouls every star and world. Within our universe, life is nested together from largest to smallest, life within life — the universe is alive, so our Galaxies are alive, so our solar systems are alive, and so our Earth is also a living, conscious entity from whom we receive our own life. Life cannot be supported by something that is dead; if our Earth was dead, we would not have life. Every planet is a unique, life supporting living entity. The life and power of the Almighty Spirit is not distant from us, but is everywhere within creation at-once, including beneath our feet in Gaia/Ina Maka/Pachamama/Tuuwaqatsi/Etenoha/Eingana, etc. — our Mother Earth. If we desert our world, severing our roots in the Earth, we abandon Nature’s plan, removing ourselves from our life-giving source and course, breaking our covenants with the Great Spirit we call God.

maxresdefaultIf life abounds throughout the universe, why don’t we see any life but ours? As the book explains, our Earth has evolved life from the outlying orbit of Pluto, migrating orbit by orbit closer to the Sun, in a process known to the Hopi as the Sacred Path of Migration. Each orbital move closer to the Sun brings about greater evolutionary development in the biology of Earth. Each orbit closer to the Sun also increases in density. And this is the reason why we don’t see any life but ours. Quoting from the book:

Life exists upon the other planets of our system, but we cannot see it because each world is a unique ecosphere existing within its own density spectrum. Our sense perceptions are bound within a limited range of our system’s spectra, so we only perceive the other worlds where their spectra overlap into our own. There is much more going on upon the other worlds of our system than we can be aware of within the limited range of our present perception. To understand our universe, and our place within it, we have to come to a whole new understanding of life, death, reality, and visibility. That which lies outside of our spectrum of sound, light, and density, and which we cannot hear, see, or touch is also created by God.

For by Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in Earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him, and for Him. (Col. 1:16)

MercuryVenusEarthMarsIn order to explain the process I would like to quote the words from someone very wise, who can explain it much better than me:

A good understanding about the different densities prevailing on planets will be very helpful in understanding why we appear to be alone in a densely populated universe. For now I just want to say that density increases with closer proximity to the sun, therefore, the earth has a greater density than Mars, and Venus has a greater density than the earth. And density is tied to perception.

The planets’ densities, measured in grams per cubic centimeter, are generally given as follows:
• Mercury – 5.427 g/cm³
• Venus – 5.204 g/cm³
• Earth – 5.515 g/cm³
• Mars – 3.934 g/cm³
• Jupiter – 1.326 g/cm³
• Saturn – 0.687 g/cm³
• Uranus – 1.27 g/cm³
• Neptune – 1.638 g/cm³
• Pluto – 2.03 ± 0.06 g/cm³

The chart is is mistaken in proposing a greater density for the earth than for Venus. Venus, the planet closest to the Sun, has the greatest density of all planets in our Solar System.

Venus is the most dense planet in our Solar System. Mercury is very dense, but Mercury is not a planet, Mercury is an ejected core. The material of Mercury is almost identical to the composition of the core of earth.  Earth is the second most dense planet in our Solar System and Mars is the third most dense. Mars has a lower density than Earth because Mars is further from the sun. Planetary density decreases with distance from the Sun.

The theory that the inner, terrestrial planets, are greater in density than the outlying planets is based on the idea that the outlying planets are comprised almost entirely of gases, but such is not the case, the outlying planets are solid bodies, surrounded by gases.

The rest of this post is a direct copy of another post on HaMoshiach.com which, I’m afraid, has recently been removed. I’m putting it here in its entirety. Because it is a wonderfully clear, concise and fascinating explanation:

OUR LIVING UNIVERSE: SEEN AND UNSEEN
GRAVITY AND INVISIBILITY

invisibility

This post is a brief answer to a question I received among my messages.  It will be removed soon.

Language is limited to that which is known.  Words have not been formulated for the unknown.  I found this sentence on a university website, “The concept of mass is so basic that it is impossible to define. Isaac Newton called mass the quantity of matter. We can talk all around it but we will finally have to admit that our words fail.”

I was pleased to see that the author was able to admit that there are times when “words fail”.  The same author defined mass as the measure of the amount of stuff in something.  I would do away with the word mass altogether, because it’s an unnecessary concept, instead of mass I use the word body.

The same author, a physicist, said that a unit of mass is called a slug, short for sluggishness.  And he defined weight as the force with which the earth pulls on the mass, and said that weight is related to the force of gravity.  He added that the word “gravity”  causes confusion.

I don’t believe the word gravity causes confusion. I believe a better understanding of gravity would resolve existing confusion.  The author completed his explanation of mass with these words, “No matter where you might be in the universe “the weight of a mass is the force of gravity on the mass.”

Some men express themselves more easily in the language of mathematics than that of words, but contrary to popular belief, mathematics is not always correct. Often, when a theory is proposed, a formula is devised to ‘prove’ the theory.  Many such formulae belong in the realm of science fiction.

Even when a concept can be described using formulae, most people aren’t able to grasp complex formulae.  And the problem remains that there aren’t always words to describe that which is not understood. Therefore, when a word doesn’t exist I adapt an existing word.

Think of density not as weight but as  ‘compactness’.  And think of ‘compactness’ as being a measure of how tightly the molecules of a body are wound.  After you have grasped the concept of tightly and loosely wound molecules you may wonder, “What is the force that winds the molecules in a body?”

A force with a coiling action winds the molecules of a body.  And the force has weight.  The force isn’t weight per se, but it has weight and it impartsweight. The force enters into the molecules of a body and winds the molecules into loops.  My continued use of the words “the force” are making me sound like a scriptwriter for Star Trek, so I’m going to make less use of the words “the force” and use the word “gravity“.

Man’s DNA is loosely coiled.

Man's DNA is loosely coiled.

In 1997 a science fiction film called, “The Fifth Element” portrayed an advanced being with tightly coiled DNA.

Above is picture of the more tightly coiled DNA of the entity in the film “The Fifth Element.”

Above is a picture of the more tightly coiled DNA of the entity in the film “The Fifth Element.”

Milla Jovoich fifth element

The above picture is of Milla Jovovich, the actress who portrayed the entity referred to as the Fifth Element. I pass no comment on the posture the actress assumes in the picture, rather, I point out the brilliant red colour, and ray-like appearance, of the entity’s hair – see pictures below – symbolic of an existence close to a Sun.

Milla Jovoich fifth element2

Milla Jovoich fifth element3

Milla Jovoich fifth element4

It is made clear in the course of the film that the entity, who is referred to as “him”,  is androgynous and “perfect”.  Once again, those are the attributes of entities having their existence close to a Sun.  An entity having molecules as tightly wound as those of the Fifth Element would have a greater density than man, would also be heavier than man, and would exist on a planet closer to a Sun. In our Solar System that planet would be Venus.

This is an excerpt from the script of The Fifth Element:

General: Have you at least identified it?
Scientist: We tried but the computer went off the charts. You see, normal human beings have 40 DNA memo groups, which is more than enough for any species to perpetuate itself. This one has 200,000 memo groups.
General: Sounds like a freak of nature to me.
Scientist: Yes…can’t wait to meet him

Albeit it is science fiction, nevertheless it is unfortunate, that an advanced entity having 200,000 memo groups would be considered a freak.  The scientist goes on to describe the compositional elements of “his” DNA chain as being, “the same as ours; there are simply more of them, tightly packed with infinite genetic knowledge”.

As I’ve said, the coiling force that acts on molecules has weight, therefore comparing man’s loosely wound DNA to the entities tightly wound DNA should be enough to demonstrate that such an entity would be heavier than man.  Weight is not confined to size (proportion).  An entity with tightly wound molecules could be smaller than man and yet weigh considerably more than man.

Man’s DNA is loosely coiled.

Above:  DNA being ‘packaged’ into chromosomes by the force I refer to as “Gravity”.

DNA would unwind if the force exited from the molecule

Above: DNA would unwind if the force exited from the molecule.

Image below: Without the action of Gravity, DNA would uncoil and become straight and ladder-like.

Without the action of Gravity, DNA would uncoil and become straight and ladder-like.

The combined action of the coiling force of gravity on a body, and the presence of gravity inside the molecules of a body, determine the density of the body.  When gravity diminishes in the molecules of a body, weight and density also diminish.

If a large body ejects half of its substance, the two halves may retain their original density (compactness), or they may be compressed into more compact material. Whether or not either body retains its original compactness, or compresses into a denser substance, depends on internal and external forces at work on the body.

Throughout the day, whatever else I have been doing, I have been thinking about my choice of sentence, “Whether or not either body retains its original compactness, or compresses into a denser substance, depends on internal and external forces at work on the body.” I’m aware that it’s the kind of sentence a normal scientist would use when he is at loss for just one word.  And I am at loss for one good descriptive word so I’m going to have to use several words.  There are factors that determine the degree to which gravity is present in a body.  One factor is the presence of other forces of gravity. When one source of gravity is in the vicinity of another source of gravity, there is a net effect.  If I were confident that you had understood me clearly thus far, I would say, “combined gravities can pack more information into less molecules” but I’m not confident that I’ve been understood.  A planet close to the Sun is influenced by the gravity of the Sun. All the planets in a Solar System are influenced by the Sun’s gravity and since the Sun’s gravity diminishes with distance, outlying planets are less influenced than inner planets.

Returning to the science fiction film, “The Fifth Element”.  Milla Jovovich acted the part of an advanced being named, “Leeloo”.  For Leeloo’s DNA to be as many-stranded and as dense as the example depicted in the film, she would have come from a planet very close to the Sun, as is our planet Venus.  Her home planet would be greatly influenced by it’s close proximity to the Sun, and this influence would be apparent in her DNA.

invisibilityI’m going to use the word ‘spectrum’ in this explanation of ‘density’ though it is not an accurate word as it has connotations of ‘optics’ and I need a word that conveys ‘reality’.  Consider that density (compactness/how tightly the molecules of a body are wound) exists on the same spectrum as sound, and your interaction with density, like sound, is limited to the green area on the spectrum marked 20HZ to 20,000HZ. Think of the small, green area of the spectrum as your reality because the green area is where you receive environmental input.

Sound extends far beyond the elephant in one direction and far beyond the bat in the other direction.  Sound that occurs on the spectrum but does not come into the green band, is not perceived by your senses and is inaudible to you.  If you think of inaudible sound as being like invisible matter, then you are approaching a rudimentary understanding of density.  Staying with the word ‘spectrum’, density can be conceived of as being on the same spectrum as sound.

Density that is perceived by your senses occurs on the green band between the elephant and the bat. Density , as with sound, extends far beyond the elephant and the bat, but you are limited to interaction with density that occurs on the green band of the spectrum.  Move the elephant further along on the spectrum until you’ve moved it off the green band and it becomes invisible. Do the same with the bat and it becomes invisible.

Electricity, magnetism, thought, light, sound, density, visibility, invisibility, are aspects of a single “force” that has no word in this world.  “Electromagnetism” is not appropriate because of the clear reference to electricity and magnetism.  All the different aspects  –  electricity, magnetism, thought, light, sound, density, visibility, invisibility (and more )– arise out of the action of one single force.

I use the word “gravity” to describe the primary force because “gravity” (“gravis”, “gravid”, “heavy”) implies “pregnant”.  A gravid uterus being one which is carrying young.

The Earth is “gravid” with all manner of eggs and young in all stages of life.  When I say ‘gravity’ I’m referring to the force which arises out of the Earth’s gravid condition. All the aspects of reality that impact on man’s senses to shape his world emanate from gravity.

Input that you perceive occurs in the green band of spectrum. Gravity is the spectrum.

Where you are on the spectrum determines what is audible and visible in your reality.  If you could increase or decrease your physical density to a point that falls outside of the green band, you would become invisible to everyone who remains in the confines of the green band.  Alter Gravity and you alter reality.  Move the elephant out of the green area of the spectrum and she “disappears” out of your reality and reappears in a different reality.

I’m not satisfied with this explanation, the words don’t exist to clearly describe what I’m trying to say in this post.

Getting back to your question, changing the weight of a body by removing a part of it does not impact on the density (compactness) of the body. Any increase or decrease in the density of the body is brought about through the action of gravity tightening (or loosening) the tension in the molecules of the body.

********

Mk's bk pg 140-141 - We are the Root & Offspring of the Earth

We are the Root & Offspring of the Earth

The final word  I would like to give to Earth Mother Our Womb of Life:

Our Earth is next in line to ascend to the highest position of our sun system, where those who remain with Her will receive their completed, incorruptible forms. Our World will then become a paradise beyond what we can presently imagine. A world of great beauty where all life lives together in peace without suffering or struggle, the completion of a journey we have been upon for many ages with the Earth. In our perfected, eternal bodies, our Mother will release greater knowledge and power to us, with which to serve God as guardians of the life evolving upon the younger worlds of ours, and other systems.

Mercury – a moon

Quoting Earth Mother Our Womb of Life:

There is a cyclical process in Nature which moves life forward upon each mother world. This advancement of life requires the linear, calendar time we are provided by our Mother Earth. The periodic movements and evolutionary progress within this cycle occur at the end of Purification Times, when each world flies closer to the sun, and the life upon it is evolved to a higher stage due to the excitation present during these times.

Figure 6

The Sacred Path of Migration states that the planets in our Solar System move orbit by orbit closer to the Sun as part of a progressive evolutionary process. An important part of the process is that the moon of the third orbit (our moon) moves into the orbit closest to the Sun during Purification Time. This means that Mercury is not a planet, but rather a moon – a moon that was once in the third orbit – like our moon. In this post I want to see just how similar Mercury and our moon truly are.

Mercury

Mercury

Our Moon

Our Moon

The video above, from NASA, shows Mercury’s south polar region.  Mercury not only looks like our moon, but also shares more similarities with our moon than any of the planets in our Solar System, including:

  • Mercury has no atmosphere, neither does our moon.
  • Mercury is heavily scarred with craters and lava mares, like our moon.
  • Mercury and the moon are of similar size – less the half the size of the Earth.
  • Mercury is highly rich in iron (in fact the most iron-rich of all the planets by a large margin), as is our moon.

The video below is from the Science Chanel – it explains the closeness of Mercury and our moon.

Mercury is very dense. As Alan Stern says above: “Mercury [is] mostly a core and little else.” Mercury’s density cannot be explained by slow-and-gradual-development models. So the preferred scientific explanation is that billions of years ago, a large object crashed into Mercury, stripping away its lesser-dense material, leaving behind the high-density planet seen today. In other words – leaving behind the Core of the planet. This supports the book’s explanation of the “Sacred Path of Migration” which says that Mercury was once a planetary Core.

Diagram of the interior structure of Mercury. The metallic core comprises most of the planet’s interior. Credit: Nicolle Rager Fuller, National Science Foundation

Diagram of the interior structure of Mercury. The metallic core comprises most of the planet’s interior. Credit: Nicolle Rager Fuller, National Science Foundation

The moon once harbored a dynamic molten core

The moon once harbored a dynamic molten core

Another similarity between Mercury and our moon is that they both are unexpectedly magnetised! (Find out more about our magnetised moon here.) Quoting from the Astronomy Notes of astronomy professor Nick Strobel from Bakersfield College, California:

Mercury is a bit surprising because it has a weak magnetic field. Mercury is the smallest of the terrestrial planets, so its interior should have cooled off long ago. Also, Mercury spins slowly—once every 58.8 days. Mercury’s high density tells us that it has a proportionally large iron-nickel core. 

Mercury’s situation was a major challenge to the magnetic dynamo theory. In true scientific fashion, the theory made a testable prediction: Mercury should have no magnetic field or one even less than Mars’ one because its core should be solid. Observation, the final judge of scientific truth, contradicted the prediction. Should we have thrown out the magnetic dynamo theory then? Astronomers were reluctant to totally disregard the theory because of its success in explaining the situation on the other planets and the lack of any other plausible theory.

I’ve highlighted the last few words of the quote because the professor makes a valuable point – the current scientific explanation for how Mercury could be magnetised does not fit the data, but there is no other scientific explanation. The true nature of Mercury remains unknown.

Step 4: Life Began in the Icy Orbit of Pluto

P1120122 - Copy

“You could say that the universe is in the business of making life – or that God is an organic chemist.”
~ Dr. Cyril Ponnamperuma, “Seeds of Life”, Omni Magazine Interview, 1983

Quoting from Earth Mother Our Womb of Life:

On July 21, 1986, more than 260 scientists from over 20 nations gathered in California to discuss the origin of life on Earth. Dr. Cyril Ponnamperuma, director of the chemical evolution laboratory of the University of Maryland, expressed the opinion of everyone present when he said, “… The processes which led to life on Earth must have started elsewhere in the universe…”

It is common knowledge that the conditions prevailing in the Earth’s present position (approximately 149 ½ million km. from the sun) are unsuitable for the formation of life. Any search for the origins of humanity has to look for a place with much colder conditions, and with an atmosphere of hydrogen and hydrogen compounds. The most plausible explanation is that terrestrial life is a phenomenon which originated in an outlying orbit of the Solar System, where microorganisms were gathered by the convolutions of the Earth and packed into hard ice – conditions perfect for the preservation of organic material.

Screenshot of the BBC webpage on Snowball Earth, which include a number of explanatory videos.

Screenshot of the BBC webpage on Snowball Earth, which includes a number of explanatory videos.

dropstone NamibiaThere is an interesting scientific theory that says the Earth was once covered in ice, known as “Snowball Earth“. I don’t know who originated the theory – different sources claim different authorship, but certainly the work of geologists Paul Hoffman and Dan Schrag contributed significantly. They found ‘dropstones’ in Namibia, Africa. Dropstones are rocks and boulders believed to be dropped into sediment from icebergs. The fact that so many are found in the hot dry deserts of Namibia led them to propose an ice-age existed which extended as far south as the equator. Since its initial proposal Snowball Earth has gained substantial evidential support. There is a dedicated website by the U.S. National Science Foundation (Geology & Paleontology Division) which explores the theory: Snowballearth.org

Why is it interesting? Because ‘snowball Earth’ was when the first life forms are thought to have evolved. This agrees with the explanation for evolution in Earth Mother Our Womb of Life, which says that life began in the cold outer orbit of Pluto.

An informative and fascinating article in Discover Magazine, February 2008, entitled: Did Life Evolve in Ice? brings together the work of chemists, physicists and astro-biologists who all arrived independently at the notion that the “funky properties of frozen water may have made life possible.” Below is a series of excerpts, including the original links:

Discover Magazine February 2008

Discover Magazine February 2008

“For decades, those studying the origin of life have imagined that it emerged in balmy conditions from primordial soups, tropical ponds, even boiling volcanic vents. Miller [Stanley L. Miller, renowned origin of life chemist] and and a few other scientists began to suspect that life began not in warmth but in ice—at temperatures that few living things can now survive. The very laws of chemistry may have favored ice, says Bada [Jeffery Bada, chemist and astrobiologist], now at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California. “We’ve been arguing for a long time,” he says, “that cold conditions make much more sense, chemically, than warm conditions.”

*****

… strange things happen when you freeze chemicals in ice. Some reactions slow down, but others actually speed up—especially reactions that involve joining small molecules into larger ones. This seeming paradox is caused by a process called eutectic freezing. As an ice crystal forms, it stays pure: Only molecules of water join the growing crystal, while impurities like salt or cyanide are excluded. These impurities become crowded in microscopic pockets of liquid within the ice, and this crowding causes the molecules to collide more often. Chemically speaking, it transforms a tepid seventh-grade school dance into a raging molecular mosh pit.

“Usually as you cool things, the reaction rates go down,” concluded Leslie Orgel, who studied the origins of life at the Salk Institute in La Jolla, California, from the 1960s until his death last October. “But with eutectic freezing, the concentrations go up so fast that they more than make up” for the difference.

“The strong point of freezing,” according to Orgel, “is that you concentrate things very efficiently without evaporation.” Freezing also helps preserve fragile molecules like nucleobases, extending their lifetime from days to centuries and giving them time to accumulate and perhaps organize into something more interesting—like life.

Orgel and his coworkers proposed these ideas in 1966, when he showed that frozen cyanide efficiently assembles into larger molecules. Alan Schwartz, a biochemist at the University of Nijmegen in the Netherlands, took the idea further when he showed in 1982 that frozen cyanide, in the presence of ammonia, can form a nucleobase called adenine.

*****

Hauke Trinks and wildlife on the beach of Nordaustland

Hauke Trinks and local wildlife on the beach of Nordaustland, far north of the Arctic Circle, where he went to study the evolution of life in sea ice – similar conditions to prehistoric ‘Snowball Earth’. Credit: Marie Tieche

[Pre-historic] Earth may have cooled to an average surface temperature of –40°F and a crust of ice as much as 1,000 feet thick may have covered the oceans. Many scientists have puzzled over how life could have arisen on a planet that was essentially a giant snowball. The answer, Trinks [Hauke Trinks, physicist at Technical University of Hamburg-Harburg in Germany] suspected, involved sea ice.

Trinks had become interested in sea ice 10 years before, while studying its tendency to accumulate pollutants from the atmosphere and concentrate them in liquid pockets within the ice. He set out to explore whether a layer of ice covering early Earth’s oceans might have gathered and assembled organic molecules.”…

By the time Trinks returned to Hamburg in 2003, he had formulated a theory that ice was doing much more than just concentrating chemicals. The ice surface is a checkerboard of positive and negative charges; he imagined those charges grabbing individual nucleobases and stacking them like Pringles in a can, helping them coalesce into a chain of RNA. “The surface layer between ice and liquid is very complicated,” he says. “There is strong bonding between the surface of the ice and the liquid. Those bondings are important for producing long organic chains like RNA.”

At a lecture in Hamburg in 2003, Trinks met up with chemist Christof Biebricher, who was studying how the first RNA chains could have formed in the absence of the enzymes that guide their formation in living cells. Trinks approached Biebricher with his sea ice theory, but to Biebricher, the experiments to test it sounded messy—more like a margarita recipe than a serious scientific investigation. “Chemists,” says Biebricher, “do not like heterogeneous substances like ice.” But Trinks convinced him to try it in his laboratory at the Max Planck Institute for Biophysical Chemistry in Göttingen, Germany.

dna-and-rnaBiebricher sealed small amounts of RNA nucleobases—adenine, cytosine, guanine—with artificial seawater into thumb-size plastic tubes and froze them. After a year, he thawed the tubes and analyzed them for chains of RNA.

For decades researchers had tried to coax RNA chains to form under all sorts of conditions without using enzymes; the longest chain formed, which Orgel accomplished in 1982, consisted of about 40 nucleobases. So when Biebricher analyzed his own samples, he was amazed to see RNA molecules up to 400 bases long. In newer, unpublished experiments he says he has observed RNA molecules 700 bases long.

*****

That is a good start, but it leaves unanswered the question: How do you get from tiny snippets of RNA to longer, well-crafted chains that could have acted as the first enzymes, doing fancy things like copying themselves. The shortest RNA enzyme chains known today are about 50 bases long; most have more than 100. To work effectively, moreover, an RNA enzyme must fold correctly, which requires exactly the right sequence of bases.

A young scientist named Alexander Vlassov stumbled upon a possible answer. He was working at SomaGenics, a biotech company in Santa Cruz, California, to develop RNA enzymes that latch on to the hepatitis C virus. His RNA enzymes were behaving strangely: They normally consisted of a single segment of RNA, but every time he cooled them below freezing to purify them, the chain of RNA spontaneously joined its ends into a circle, like a snake biting its tail. As Vlassov worked to fix the technical glitch, he noticed that another RNA enzyme, called hairpin, also acted strangely. At room temperature, hairpin acts like scissors, snipping other RNA molecules into pieces. But when Vlassov froze it, it ran in reverse: It glued other RNA chains together end to end.

Vlassov and his coworkers, Sergei Kazakov and Brian Johnston, realized that the ice was driving both enzymes to work in reverse. Normally when an enzyme cuts an RNA chain in two, a water molecule is consumed in the process, and when two RNA chains are joined, a water molecule is expelled. By removing most of the liquid water, the ice creates conditions that allow the RNA enzyme to work in just one direction, joining RNA chains. The SomaGenics scientists wondered whether an icy spot on early Earth could have driven a primitive enzyme to do the same. 

*****

Miller died on May 20, 2007, but the provocative theory he helped nurture lives on. In the latest twist, Miller’s ideas are influencing not just theories about life’s origin on Earth but also investigations about the potential for life elsewhere in the solar system. 

In January 2013, a drill cut half a mile through the Antarctic Ice Sheet to Subglacial Lake Whillans.

In January 2013, a drill cut half a mile through the Antarctic Ice Sheet to Subglacial Lake Whillans.

In an article in the July 2013 issue of Discover Magazine (once again written by Douglas Fox): “Life Under Antarctic’s Ice”, a group of scientists discovered a subglacial lake half a mile under Antarctica, which contained something no one thought was possible – life!

“On Jan. 28, Trista Vick-Majors, one of Priscu’s Ph.D. students, took a long-awaited step: She added DNA-sensitive dye to a sample of lake water — the first attempt to detect life in Lake Whillans. As she viewed it through a microscope, she saw specks of green shining against a background of black — cells glowing in response to the dye — as many as 1.6 million cells in each cubic inch of water. Those cells were the first ever found unambiguously in a subglacial lake.”

They thought life was impossible in the subglacial lake, not just because of the cold, but the lack of sunlight.

The location of subglacial Lake Whillans West Antarctic Ice Sheet

The location of subglacial Lake Whillans West Antarctic Ice Sheet. Credit: Discover magazine

“Only the upper 10 to 30 feet of water in these lakes was frozen as ice, so sunlight filtered through, allowing life to power itself through photosynthesis. But a lake as deeply buried as Vostok [another subglacial lake] would be entirely dark, so any life there would have to use some other energy source. At that time, the question of what life might inhabit Lake Vostok was becoming increasingly relevant to people who were looking for life elsewhere in the solar system.”

pluto_core

Pluto with its Core

This is a common notion – that life requires the Sun. I recently took a university short course in eco-systems and I was surprised at how the literature gave solar energy as the only source for life. Yet this completely overlooks life found in the deep oceans near volcanic vents and the numerous translucent and blind life forms found in deep caves – who have never seen sunlight. Heat and energy coming from the Earth’s Core have been shown to provide the necessary energy for life (see video below). In the orbit of Pluto, where sunlight is limited, the planet’s Core provides the heat and energy for life to develop.

In this post I have provided evidence that:
  • Earth was once covered in ice,
  • life is believed to have evolved in ice, and
  • present day icy conditions on Earth show an abundance of simple life forms, in particular single-cell organisms – even when there is no sunlight.

But the book doesn’t only state that life began on an icy cold Earth – but that Earth was once in the orbit of Pluto, that’s why it was so cold. Perhaps it is best to look at the Pluto itself to see if it can offer us any information:

The video above from Space Telescope Science Institute was published in 2010. I include it here because astronomers have unexpectedly discovered that Pluto is not “ just an over sized snowball, but a dramatically dynamic world”. Quoting from the video:

“Pluto got redder, markedly redder, just over that very short time span [1994-2002].” ~ Marc Buie, astronomer Southwest Research Institute. “I was expecting that if we would see any change at all it would be very, very subtle and instead it seems like Pluto is changing perhaps a little faster than I would have expected.” ~ Will Grundy, astronomer, Lowell Observatory. What Pluto’s changing landscape means is anybody’s guess.

“We can no longer interpret what we are seeing as the result of a static surface that’s just changing in the direction we’re looking at it. We really have to have change taking place on the surface to explain the observations.” ~Buie “Observations that hint the Pluto is not just an over sized snowball, but a dramatically dynamic world on the solar system’s final frontier.”

New Horizons - an unmanned Pluto-Kuiper Belt probe

New Horizons – an unmanned Pluto-Kuiper Belt probe

The more we learn about Pluto the more we discard old ideas – the difficulty is figuring out new explanations to replace our old ones. In 2015 an unmanned space probe, New Horizons, will pass by and photograph Pluto and hopefully provide new information. Quoting from a BBC article entitled: “Pluto’s dynamic surface revealed by Hubble images“:

“Alan Stern, who is principal investigator on the mission, said that with every great planetary reconnaissance mission “we have always learnt that when we get there, we are blown away by how primitive our ideas were from blurry images taken from Earth.

He told BBC News: “When we get there, the odds are very high that we will have so much more information and rich detail that all our views circa 1990 and 2000 and 2010 will appear antiquated. That’s why I don’t like to make predictions.”

He added: “No one predicted river valleys on Mars, or volcanoes on the Galilean satellites, or that Mercury was mostly a core and little else. It’s entirely likely that Pluto will be something so surprising that everything we’ve done so far looks quaint in comparison.”

I hope the evidence I presented here gives you cause to think that there is more to our Solar System than we currently believe. Quoting the last paragraph from “Did Life Evolve In Ice?“:

“If life arose in ice on Earth, then why not on Mars, Europa, or Enceladus? “You’ve got to keep an open mind in this business,” Bada says. “If I were going to make a bet about what we’d find if we discover life elsewhere in the universe, I would suspect it would be more cold-adapted than hot-adapted.” “

This is the most detailed view to date of the entire surface of the dwarf planet Pluto, as constructed from multiple NASA Hubble Space Telescope photographs taken from 2002 to 2003. The center disk (180 degrees) has a mysterious bright spot that is unusually rich in carbon monoxide frost. Image released - February 2010. Credit: NASA, ESA, and M. Bule (Southwest Research Institute)

This is the most detailed view to date of the entire surface of the dwarf planet Pluto, as constructed from multiple NASA Hubble Space Telescope photographs taken from 2002 to 2003. The center disk (180 degrees) has a mysterious bright spot that is unusually rich in carbon monoxide frost. Image released – February 2010.
Credit: NASA, ESA, and M. Bule (Southwest Research Institute)