A ‘Spooky’ Structure in the Universe

 Earth Mother Our Womb of Life describes the Earth and the Solar System as living structures and systems – not metaphorically, but actually alive. We are alive because the Earth is alive, we have consciousness because the Earth has consciousness. The book explains how the system works. That’s the beauty of the book – you recognise the truth of the words as the predictions come true.

acorn-oak_tree_auctionIf someone shows you a seed and says it will grow into a mighty oak, do you trust him? You have never seen the seed of an oak tree, do you accept his word on faith alone? What if he draws a diagram of the oak tree as a seedling, then as a young tree? He draws the leaves turning yellow in autumn, falling in winter and budding green again in spring.  He draws an outline of the leaf and the shape of the canopy. Then he tells you to plant the seed and see for yourself. If the seed grows just as the man predicted, would this convince you of the truth of his words?

The book describes a very specific growth cycle and how we fit into it. Just like the planting seed – its truth is being revealed.

However there is one big difference between drawing the growth cycle of an oak tree and the explanation in the book – we believe that seeds can grow. We may not be sure if the seed will become 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 growth are unrecognised.

P1170058

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

But things are changing – more and more scientists are discovering structure and order in the universe which is contrary to our current scientific 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

This discovery may not seem important, but it is one of many recent discoveries of unexpected order and structure in the universe. 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 are 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

One hundred years before the discovery of DNA, we thought the cell was nothing more than a few chemicals in jelly. It was not even considered worthy of scientific study! We thought the cell was the simplest component in an organism – a mere brick that builds the Taj Mahal of the body. Now that view has flipped on its head. We now know the cell is more complex than any of the organs the cell builds – more complex than the body itself – the Taj Mahal is contained in the cell for the body to exist at all!

Our default scientific position is that there is nothing, until we recognise something. There is chaos, until we recognise order. There is formlessness until we recognise form. The ‘nothing’, the ‘chaos’, the ‘formlessness’ is not Truth – but merely a stop-gap until we reveal / unveil / recognise the ‘something’, the ‘order’ and the ‘form’ of Nature.

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.”

 

Quoting from an earlier post: The Birth of a Solar System:

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.”

Mercury – a moon

As explained in the book and in this blog (see Step 4: The Sacred Path of Planetary Migration), the planets in our Solar System move orbit by orbit closer to the Sun. The explanation states that the moon of the third orbit (our moon) moves into the first orbit (closest to the Sun). This means that Mercury is not a planet, but rather a moon – a moon that was once in the third orbit – like our moon.

P1140184

In this post I want to explore how similar Mercury and our Moon truly are – as both a satellite orbiting a planet and an ejected planetary core.

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 Channel – 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.