reply to post by The Real Antichrist
Mars is Earth a billion years in the future after it is destroyed in 2012, and Venus is Earth a billion years in the past before the dawn of
Well the first two posts were defiantly interesting and I was giving it some small credence until I spotted the following massive flaws in your
theory in your ensuing posts:
The gas planets show the same clues of one planet evolving. Jupiter being the first is mostly hydrogen. Just like a huge hydrogen bomb. What
would it look like if it exploded.
If Jupiter or any planet exploded you would have a massive debris field
, no intact planet with a small ring structure (yes Jupiter does have a
small ring system), in fact you would have something remarkably similar to the current asteroid belt, which is highly believed to come from a
planetary collision a few billion of years ago. Anyways, it would take something other than a small Earth-like planet hitting Jupiter to cause it to
explode. In fact with the large amount of hydrogen in Jupiter there would likely still be some type of nebula-like haze around it extending several
100,000’s of kilometers at least. In essence what I am saying is your theory goes against many proven methods of the mechanics of explosions,
planetary physics, and celestial mechanics.
Let’s look at the next planet, Saturn. What formed the rings of Saturn? Possibly a major planetary explosion. The next planet in line Uranus
has fewer ring than Saturn surly showing signs that the rings slowly dissolving back into the planet. the next gas planet is Neptune with the most
diluted version of ringed planets having the fewest. to me its as clear as 1234 and ABCD.
Again, you are disregarding many proven laws of celestial mechanics, planetary physics, astrophysics, and explosion science. Here is some information
incase you think I do not know what I am talking about:
Let me ask you this: What would happen if you dropped a match in Jupiter’s high hydrogen atmosphere, would it ignite and light the planet on
If Jupiter actually exploded (as in, boom and nothing left), what happens to us depends on the method of the explosion. Planets don't explode -
the gravitational binding energy of something the size of Jupiter is well beyond the capability of any mundane chemical or nuclear process to
overwhelm. To make Jupiter actually explode would take something really exotic, like throwing a moon made of antimatter at it, or somehow converting
the core of Jupiter into neutronium. In that case the results for everyone in the solar system could be bad, as the process would probably liberate a
vast amount of radiation - effectively a mini supernova. Everything on the side of the planet not facing Jupiter would probably survive for a while.
This one is so easy, just listen please.
They say we can see the edge of the universe, the big bang, yet it happened 14 billion years ago. But we can see it today. To look through
space is to look through time. so if we can see the birth of the universe we should be able to see the birth of earth and we can it's right in front
of us it always has been.
How can we see an early version of the same planet we are viewing from???
PERSPECTIVE and LOCATION in space prevents us from being able to look billions of lightyears at the sky and viewing OUR OWN PLANET WE ARE ON. This is
basic logic, how can you view Earth with a telescope if YOU ARE ON IT? Earth exists HERE, on this location in space. Earth does not exist 100,000
lightyears somewhere else. If you were to view Earth from say the Andromeda Galaxy then yes, you could see Earth as it was 2.5 million years ago,
since Andromeda is 2.5 million lightyears away the light takes that long to reach it from our position on Earth. Suggested reading material would be
anything on relativity, basic astronomy, and basic physics. Here is a couple links for you:
The mass of the planets get bigger and bigger until mars, then it is smaller. When the Earth is hit in 2012 Half of the debris from the planet
will become Venus' first moon the one we have today transforming Venus into Earth, and the other half of the debris will stay with earth creating a
second moon turning earth into mars. If you add mars two moons to the planet of mars you will have a planet bigger than earth and it will follow the
I do not know if you are trying to say that Venus has a moon, but it does not. The two planets without moons are Mercury and Venus. If your theory is
true and space outside of the ‘time bubble’ is static then should Venus not have a moon right now?
Electrons can exist thousands of times at the same time.
That doesn’t really make sense, were you trying to say electrons can exist thousands of places at the same time, or were you trying to say
thousands of electrons can exist in the same spot at the same time?
If it was the latter you are incorrect as the
Pauli Exclusion Principle
forbids that. If it was the first one then you were
referring to the Probability Distribution
, which is described mathematically by the
. Basically an electron, or any particle can be anywhere within a certain space at
any time, there is a probability for any position, in fact until observed the function of a particle is said to be in all places at once, but this is
not true once its’ position is observed. It also does not apply to the macro (large) world. The principle is called
, in case you would like to study it further.
Wave function of hydrogen atom electron courtesy of Wikipedia.org
Forty years ago Pluto was a planet! LOL They change the rules every time someone like me steps up and proves them wrong
That was until the IAU defined the criteria need to be met to be classified as a planet for the first time in 2006. Pluto is now a dwarf planet.
I am not trying to ‘go after you’ or be mean, I am only trying to separate the fictitious statements you made in your theory. You can not present
something claiming it is ‘ground breaking’ and not actually do research necessary to support your claim. I am in no way trying to deter you for
having your own theory, just pointing out things that do not add up. It isn’t good to post things that ‘pollute’ the populace with false claims
erroneously said to be baked by real world fact. So in essence what I am saying is it is best to get your facts in order, then mold theories off of
them as you see fit.
*If I misworded anything on the quantum mechanical exlanations please forgive me, it is a very complex subject that I am still learning.