Big Bang, Little Bang

•August 27, 2014 • Leave a Comment
Fig. 1 WMAP map of Cosmic Microwave Background

Fig. 1 WMAP map of Cosmic Microwave Background

Big Bang

Cosmologists study the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), the glow from the first light in the universe, a backgound of the entire sky in the form of a near-perfect black-body curve (Physics 101) now with a temperature of 2.7255 Kelvins.  Superimposed on this microwave sky they have detected small temperature anisotropies (defined as ΔT/T, which are 0.001 % (mK) or smaller) across the entire sky (Figure 1.), These small angular anisotropies are averaged over the entire sky, in the form of an angular power spectrum, the peaks in which have been theoretically linked to a number of cosmological parameters, such as the Hubble Constant, the age of the universe and the mass of normal matter.  Several features have even been linked to dark matter and dark energy, based on their ‘observed’ actions – clumping and uniform expansion, respectively. Unfortunately science is not even close to determining the true nature of these ‘dark things’.

Fig. 2 Angular power spectrum of Plank CMB map

Fig. 2 Angular power spectrum of Plank CMB map

WMAP and Plank satellites have produced amazing results shown in Figure 2, which shows the power spectrum of these small angle anisotropies,which represent the angular sizes of the spots in the sky map in Figure 1.

The Solar System?

Fascinated as they have been in the analyses of these huge data sets, cosmologists have had little interest in the solar system, but recently, other analyses of the CMB data sets have revealed a number of unexpected alignments of large scale anisotropies with the solar system.  This is popularly described as a violation of the ‘Copernican Principle’, that the Earth has no special place in the universe, but this is not strictly true because Copernicus actually claimed that the Earth revolved around the Sun, which is obviously the center of the solar system. Regardless, the quantative investigation of the CMB is based on the assumption, the cosmological principle, that observations made from Earth can be taken to be generally characteristic of what would be seen from any other point in the Universe at the same epoch.


Fig. 3  Quadrupole & Octupole alignments with Solar System

Fig. 3 Quadrupole & Octupole alignments with Solar System

Figure 3 graphically illustrates these troubling alignments with the solar system.  This is not a plot of the actual sky, it is the result of fitting spherical-harmonic-like functions to the data, which reveal hidden ‘multipoles’, e.g. the dipole, the quadrupole and octupoles, The dipole, currently thought to be well determined, has been removed, It is merely the result of the motion of the Earth relative to the Universe.  Its direction is indicated at the lower left in Figure 3, in which the plane of the ecliptic is the solid line.  The affect of these multipole alignments in Figure 3 shows up as the irregular points in the power spectrum, the shaded area at the lowest l values (largest angles) in Figure 2.

The Axis of Evil

Specifically, the suspect alignments in Figure 3 are: (a) the quadrupole and octupole  are close to one another; (b) they are orthogonal to the ecliptic plane; (c) the normals to the four planes defining the quadrupole (1) and octupole (3) are aligned with the dipole (direction of motion of the Earth) and with the equinox; (d) the ecliptic threads between a hot and a cold spot separating three strong extrema from three weak ones.  From a cosmological perspective, the probabilities that all these alignments could occur is estimated at 0.008% !  These highly improbable alignments have been dubbed “the axis of evil”.

One implication suggested by these alignments is that a highly energetic event, occurred in the solar system in the recent past, and a small amount of the radiated energy is being reflected by ‘local’ dust in the  galaxy. This energy would be superimposed on the true Cosmic Microwave Background.  Cosmologists refer to this as a ‘foreground’ event, meaning that its effect lies between the Earth and the CMB.  Based on the success of the power spectrum resulting from the small anisotropies (< 1 degree) shown in Figure 2, this reflected energy would most likely be relatively uniform over a broad area but not necessarily over the entire sky, thereby affecting  only the large angle portion of the spectrum.   However, no scientist has suggested a theory of what could have caused such an event.

The Standard Model of the Solar System

One obvious reason for this lack of theories, is that the ‘standard model’ of the solar system accepted today, uniformitarianism, holds that the solar system has been in its current configuration for 4.6 billion years. This paradigm obviously discounts any solar system event of the magnitude required to affect the large scale CMB anisotropies. In contrast to this unprovable assumption that ‘nothing has happened’, cyclic catastrophism, the subject of this blog, is based on ancient texts in every library in the world which, when taken at face value, are observations of cosmic events easily interpreted in terms of modern astrophysics and geophysics. As confident as cosmologists are of being able to look back in time via red shifts and general relativity, their tools focus on extremely distant events, while the differential equations currently used for short-term predictions of the positions of planets in the solar system are of no use in discovering past instances of catastrophic events involving high energy dissipation.

The Little Bang

The 3,000 year period of Cyclic Catastrophism was triggered by a highly energetic impact on Jupiter about 6,000 years BP, which released an estimated 10³³ joules into the solar system, thus the Little Bang.  Proto-Venus, born from this great impact became the physical agent by which this energy propagated into the inner solar system, which at that date comprised only two living planets, Earth and Mars, the latter in a Venus-like orbit inside that of the Earth. The magnitude of the proposed impact explosion on Jupiter suggests that: (a) Jupiter is a low average density, solid planet and; (b) The terrestrial planets were each created by unique high energy impacts on Jupiter and therefore have unique ages. The application of straight-forward astrophysical/geophysical concepts leads to the conclusion that Jupiter and Saturn are giant, solid, frozen, incompressible Methane Gas Hydrate (MGH) planets. These formed cold over 50 to 75 million years by the initial sticking together (‘accretion’) of snowflakes, which formed on the surfaces of dust particles at the radius of Jupiter. In this cosmogony the giant planets comprised the original solar system.

Jupiter Saturn Interior

As suggested by Jupiter’s average density, 1.33, compared to Saturn’s, 0.7, (the density of pure MGH), Jupiter incorporated almost the entire complement of heavy elements in the nascent solar system as it accreted. The currently accepted ‘gas giant’ hypothesis, that Jupiter and Saturn, known to account for 92% of the mass of the planets, comprise primarily H and He, is in direct opposition to the theoretical (published) elemental abundance of the solar system based on stellar nucleogenesis, which demands that oxygen and carbon are the third and fourth most abundant elements. MGH, comprising primarily water and methane molecules, is consistent with these abundances, as is the continued presence of methane gas in their atmospheres, which is continually being released by fusion reactions in the impact crater. Methane Gas Hydrates are common on Earth in niches where high pressure, low temperature and methane are present, consistent with the proposed conditions within the giant planets in the outer solar system. The known clathrate structure of MGH comprises rigid cells of twelve or more water molecules, each encapsulating a methane molecule or other foreign atoms/molecules.

The cosmological implications of the Big Bang  are primarily from the Rig Veda and Greek myth. The Rig Veda states that Aditi (proto-Venus) was born from Dyauspitar, the Heaven Father (Jupiter), describing the rebounded plasma cloud (mrttnda) as having the shape of an elephant. Given that Jupiter remains between 4 and 6 AU from the Earth (the AU is the distance from the Sun to the Earth), the identification of such a shape suggests that a plasma cloud > 4 million km in diameter rebounded from the impact. Even more significant, Greek myth suggests a comparable magnitude explosion in independent astrophysical terms: “When Pallas Athene (Young Athena or proto-Venus) was born, the earth round about cried fearfully” – implying that the entire Earth reacted to a gravitational impulse initiated by the impact at a distance > 4 AU, over half an hour later.

Fusion-Boosted Impact on Jupiter
The further application of astrophysics to these observations and others (see below), suggests that high kinetic energy impacts on Jupiter momentarily raise local surface temperatures to several 100 million K, triggering enormous nuclear fusion explosions, exponentially magnifying the impact energy beyond any currently conceivable level and thereby have created the terrestrial planets. The fusion explosions are fueled by the compression of already densely packed H, D (p-p), C, N, and O in the form of water, methane and ammonia molecules at the impact site, and fusion has been maintained in the crater by the high atmospheric pressure at depths > 600 km below the cloud-tops.

Fig. 4 A 9th century AD drawing of the planets, with Jupiter and plume at upper left.

Fig. 4 A 9th century AD drawing of the planets, with Jupiter and plume at upper left.

Reinforcing the enormous power and uniqueness of the ‘recent’ impact on Jupiter, a combination of ancient and modern observations further suggest that a significant source of energy, initiated by the primary impact event, is still manifest on Jupiter, indeed, it is the source of every feature of the giant planet to this day. The impact explosion initiated a continuing fusion conflagration in the crater manifested as a great jet of hot gases which continued to shoot millions of km into space, only gradually diminishing over some six millennia. Evidence of the magnitude and longevity of the jet comes in the form of a drawing of the planet Jupiter, the upper left figure in an Arabic epistle dated around the 9th century AD. The purpose of which was to classify comets, given clear planetary charasteristics.  The upper left hand figure in annotated ‘bearded’ ‘having the temperment of Jupiter’  The other drawings illustrate the appearances of the other planets, all of which appear to show the lasting effects of cyclic catastriphism, having ended only 1,600 years prior. This epistle, incidentally, suggests that the reknown Arabic culture of Baghdad at that date had astronomical telescopes (Figure 4).

Potential Effect of the Jupiter Explosion on the CMB

The initial orbit of proto-Venus,which rebounded from Jupiter into the inner solar system implies that the impacting body passed through the system and impacted the Sun-facing side of Jupiter releasing ~ 10³³ joules, the binding energy of the Earth. The resulting explosion created a gravitational/heat wave with origin at the impact point 6,000 years BP. The alignment of the quadrupole and octopole moments normal to the kinetic vector suggests that the impact blast was oriented close to the direction of motion of the solar system, indeed, this may have been a factor in the relative velocity of the impacting (galactic?) body. The jet, marked by the location of the Great Red Spot at 22 degrees south latitude is consistent with the greater heat in the southern ecliptic hemisphere, but the instantaneous expanding gravitational/heat wave would probably been directed opposite to the velocity of the impactor, that is, close to the kinetic vector, the direction of solar system motion relative to the Universe. It would probably not have expanded the the opposite direction, due to the absorption of the wave in that direction by the body of Jupiter. The primary effect of the gravitational/radiation wave in the CMB data today would be the heat reflected from cosmic dust, an additive foreground surface, ~ 3000 light years distant with a dipole distribution close to but not exactly aligned with the kinetic vector. Such a large-scale asymmetry might effect the large angle values of many points and thereby influence the power spectrum at low-l values.


The motion of the solar system relative to the CMB results in a well known dipole temperature anisotropy, producing both an aberration and a modulation, a boosting, of the CMB temperature anisotropies in the direction of motion. The process of correcting for this slight temperature increase in the direction of motion is called deboosting. The exact direction of the temperature boost is considered well established over some 30 years, and has been ‘confirmed’ based on the full sky data sets WMAP and Plank (Plank 2013 results. XXVII. Doppler boosting of the CMB: Eppur si muove). However, any foreground effect from the Jupiter explosion, has been present for six millennia.

Assuming the temperature and direction of the proposed blast from the impact on Jupiter was oriented close to, but not exactly aligned with, the kinematic vector, it could be causing an error in the exact direction of β‖ , the CMB dipole direction used for the deboosting correction. Indeed it is the ‘boosting’ paper cited above (XXVII), which states in Section 7. Conclusions: “tests with component separated maps shown in Figure 5. provide a strong indication that our 217 GHz map has slight residual foreground contamination.”

The primary affect of the proposed expanding wave from the explosion on Jupiter today, would be a low-level ΔT/T increase over a broad area in the general direction of motion of the solar system, but not exactly in the direction of motion of the solar system and possiblya corresponding lesser foreground of ΔT/T or even an absence of  foregroud heating in the opposite direction due to the blocking of the blast wave by the body of Jupiter. This could.  This opens up the possibility that the  true kinetic vector might better be based on the orientation of the low temperature point in the direction opposite the kinetic vector, thereby aiding in determining a foreground correction in the direction of the true kinetic vector, before the deboosting is applied. The reduction of the foreground effect could improve the low-l temperature anisotropy power spectrum thereby clarifying the ‘initial conditions’, the dominance of dark energy and, combined with the polarization data, potentially confirm a gravitational wave contribution to CMB.

NASA Juno Probe Will Confirm Jupiter Explosion

In 2016 Juno will enter a highly eccentric polar orbit which passes between Jupiter’s cloud-tops and its radiation belts around perigee to study its gravitational and radiation fields during 33 orbits as the planet rotates. The coverage of the entire planet will take about a year. The gravity system is designed to use Doppler changes in the probe’s transmissions to determine Jupiter’s internal structure – currently imagined to comprise hydrogen and helium with a ~ 25 earth-mass core deep inside the planet. If, as proposed herein, Jupiter instead comprises a solid frozen methane gas hydrate surface some 600 km below the cloud-tops, three enormous craters associated with the creations of Mars (4.6 by), Earth (3.9 by) and proto-Venus (6,000 y) BP, should be sensed. Although the ancient craters, from the creation of Mars and Earth, may be partially filled with water – the ultimate product of melted MGH, the still active proto-Venus crater will certainly be detected by this experiment at 22 degrees south latitude, some 5,000 km to the east of the Great Red Spot, due to Jupiter’s rapid rotation. Juno also carries a number of microwave radiometer channels to study emissions from different depths in the putative gaseous interior. Several of these channels should detect strong emissions from the fusion furnace coincident with the location of the Venus crater and perhaps the rising plume.

Although some cosmologists might look forward to the Juno data as corroboration of a potential foreground source which is masking large scale CMB anisotropies, a very real possibility exists that, if the ‘ludicrous’ predictions proposed herein are indeed observed, they will be ‘interpreted’ by the Juno team as instrument malfunctions, and discarded. Since both disciplines, essentially all of academia, hold strong ‘evolutionist’ and elitist views not readily or frankly communicated to the public, there remains a strong possibility that the predicted features on Jupiter will be declared irrelevant, or even consistent with the current ‘standard model’ of the solar system.

This is exactly what occurred with the Pioneer Venus (PV) mission, in which radiometer data from all four probes and the orbiter showed that Venus radiates (on both day and night sides) an amazing 20 W/m2 more than it receives from the Sun. However, twenty-six years later the standard (Pollack) model remains that the high surface temperature, 872 F (467 C), is due to a greenhouse effect supplemented by an undefined ‘global dynamics’ – which incidentally constitutes a primary scientific support of the ‘global warming’ scare on Earth.


There are more things in Heaven and Earth than are dreamed of in your philosophy, Horatio.

William Shakespeare

In theory, theory and practice are the same.  In practice, they are not.    Albert Einstein

Eppur Si muove  “And yet it moves.”  Galileo after being forced to recant his idea that the Eareth moves around the Sun



IO’s Newest Blast

•August 11, 2014 • Leave a Comment
Fig. 1 Big blasts on little Io   (NASA photo)

Fig. 1 Big blasts on little Io (NASA photo)

New observations of Io catch large eruptions. These probably occur frequently but the moon of Jupiter is not continually monitered.  As implied by William B Hubbard in ‘Planetary Interiors’, the large luminosity of Io (which just got greater) invalidates all the assumptions about the Galilean moons in the ‘standard model’ of the solar system. The model says that the great heat of Io is due to the “tidal tug-of-war” between Io, Europa and Ganymede, thought to be maintained by the tidal effect of Jupiter (a gas giant). But gaseous planets cannot exert any tidal effect. Hubbard even suggests this in terms of a Qj=infinity (Q is the reciprocal of the ‘lead angle’ by which a body exerts a tug on an orbiting body). If jupiter has a tidal effect, the heat of Io must be generated by this effect, but assuming Io has been radiating as much as it is today, for 4.5 billion years gives a Q for Io = 1, which is physically impossible. It continually amazes me that thousands of scientists understand these contradictions but cannot move outside the envelope which they were forced into to get their PhDs.

Of course cyclic catastrophism explains the truth – that the Galilean moons are just the left-over mass which did not escape the gravity of Jupiter when proto-Venus was created by an incredible impact, exponentially increased by fusion in the frozen, solid methane gas hydrate (plus all the heavy elements in their nucleogenesis proportions) which comprises the body of Jupiter, and entered their orbital resonances only 6,000 years ago. The moons then essentially received a cosmic paint job from a great jet that continued to shoot from the impact crater on the whirling Jupiter for about six more millennia. Because this jet of hot gases declined so slowly the outer moon Callisto is frozen solid, its paint job a bunch of craters, Ganemede is also full of craters but was hotter when the bodies formed from the jet hit, and the craters sort of slouch. Europa got so much heat from the jet that only the heavy elements could condense on its surface early on and only toward the end could all the water at its orbit condense on its surface forming its water/ice covering. The heat in its interior is the reason there is liquid water below the ice. Io was exposed longest to the hot jet and the radiation from Jupiter, resulting in its volcanic surface. Io and proto-Venus are sort of hot brothers, sons of Jupiter.

Jeremiah 33:3  Call to me and I will answer you and tell you great and unsearchable things you do not know.

Mercury a Hit and Run Planet?

•July 10, 2014 • Leave a Comment
Fig. 1 Mercury as imaged by MESSENGER, with parallel gouged grooves from Valles Marineris.

Fig. 1 Mercury as imaged by MESSENGER, with parallel gouged grooves from Valles Marineris.

A few scientists have proposed that Mercury was a ‘normal’ terrestrial planet that had its mantle and crust blasted away by the impact of a large body billions of years ago, thereby ‘explaining’ why it is primarily solid iron. The most difficult problem with this hypothesis is that the spectrum of the surface is ‘chondritic’, i.e. it contains many volatile elements that are found in the most common meteorites which have fallen to Earth. If the crust and mantle had been blasted away, then these elements should not be present. Two scientists, Asphaug (ASU) & Reufer (Bern) have supposedly ‘solved’ this dilemma by developing a statistical scenario for how planets merge and grow based on the “common notion” that Mars and Mercury are the last two relics of an original population of maybe 20 bodies that mostly accreted to form Venus and Earth, which lucked out (2 for 3 ain’t such a bad batting average). Contemporary science also claims that the millions of craters covering Mercury’s surface are proof that it is an ancient planet, billions of years old.

Cyclic Catastrophism

Based on the recent creation of Venus described in ancient texts, Cyclic Catastrophism claims that terrestrial planets were each formed complete with solid iron core, mantle and crust, from unique, enormously energetic impacts on Jupiter. The reason that Mars and Mercury no longer appear ‘complete’, is because Mars’ oceans, atmosphere and biosphere were blasted to the Earth between 3700 and 700 (687) BC when it repeatedly was captured in a geostationary orbit.  At the end of this period of cyclic catastrophism, its solid iron core exited the planet (through the Valles Marineris) and fell into the inner solar system, and is now called Mercury, while conservationlaws required the remains of Mars to move out to its current frozen orbit. These two ‘planets’ are merely the debris of those encounters. During the 3,000 years of cyclic catastrophism, so much material was blasted from some one-hundred volcanoes in Mars northern hemisphere, that its northern third is 7 km below the planetary datum. Some of these bodies fell to the Earth as meteorites and on the near side of the Moon (regolith), but infinitely more have fallen and are still falling toward the Sun. As a result, the recently exposed surface of Mercury has been subjected to a great rain of the same material in the last 2,700 years, resulting in its ‘chondritic’ spectrum. Instead of the currently accepted interpretation, that these imply Mercury is billions of years old, the innumerable impact craters on Mercury actually provide a small idea of the vast amount of material that has recently colored the solar absorption spectrum, which is, not surprisingly, also ‘chontritic’.

The one-hundred geostationary encounters of Mars with the Earth, which began at the Biblical creation of mankind (3700 BC) and the fact that they resulted in the rejuvenation of the Earth, lead to the obvious conclusion that God intervened to provide the bounteous Earth on which we live today. This entire rejuvenation process took place while the first one-hundred generations of mankind watched and fortunately, their observations are preserved in many ancient texts, waiting for their revelation to the entire world.  Science, in its current form, cannot and will not accept this.  Understanding this has allowed Cyclic Catastrophism to plumb the depths of the solar system far beyond the range allowed by evolutionist thinking.

Based on the ages of Mars meteorites, it is some 4.6 billion years old, while the oldest Earth rocks are only 3.9 billion years – a difference of 700 million years.  It is interesting to note that the solid core of the Earth has a radius of 1220 km, while Mercury’s radius, including some 220 km of clinging sulphuric material from its outer core plus its ‘chondritic’ crust is 2440 km.  The difference is likely due to the greater time and subsequent cooling of Mars more ancient core.

Discard all theologies and all belief …The whole principle that someone else knows and you do not know, that the one who knows is going to teach you.  

Jiddu Krisnamurti


Will the Sun’s Magnetic Field Reverse?

•July 1, 2014 • Leave a Comment

The Magnetic Butterfly diagram shows the magnetic effects of impacting bodies and their effect on the magnetic field of the Sun

The disappointing strength of the latest sunspot cycle brings up this interesting question.  As discussed in a number of previous posts, e.g. the Kreutz Sungrazers, the asteroids ejected from the great jet on Jupiter over the last 6,000 years are still impacting the Sun causing sunspots and the resulting CMEs.  Just as their ‘brother’ main belt asteroids, these bodies contain a unique combination of elements, i.e. a small complement of all heavy elements, including iron and nickel, which mimic the elemental composition, but not the physical structure (Methane Gas Hydrate) of Jupiter itself. Because they coalesced from hot gas while still within the magnetic field of Jupiter they posses remnant magnetism, as has been observed of several main belt asteroids.

As they approach the Sun, their south poles become oriented toward its north magnetic pole. When they strike the surface of the Sun, this magnetism can be detected in the resulting sunspots by earth telescopes using spectroscopy and polarimetry.  The impacts display a systematic N-S arrangement induced by the magnetic dipole field of the Sun.  That is, their orientation opposes the existing dipole polarity of the Sun.  At the peak of the impacts, the so-called ‘sunspot maximum’, so much opposing magnetic flux is usually delivered to the Sun, that its dipole field is overwhelmed and flips.  See the following article:

This is beautifully illustrated in a magnetic butterfly diagram, originated by David Hathaway of NASA Marshall, shown in Figure 1.  The magnetic fields at mid-latitudes represent the influx due to the impacting asteroids, which only impact at latitudes less than about 30 degrees, while the magnetic fields at the very top and bottom show the dipole field of the Sun.  Note that the dipole field is overwhelmed at the maximum of asteroid input flux and becomes reversed at that time.

The weak sunspot maximum which characterizes the current cycle raises the question as to whether the Sun’s magnetic field will reverse.  Or it may just be strong enough to cancel out the existing field. I maintain that this effect proves that the Suns magnetic field is superficial and not of great significance to the Earth.  However the weakness of sunspot activity can effect Earth’s climate, since the so-called Coronal Mass Ejections heat the Earth, particularly at the poles and pump-up the Earth’s magnetic field, which originates in the superconducting solid core by Faraday and Lentz ‘laws’.

ESA Herschel Discovers OH+ in Planetary Nebula

•June 19, 2014 • 2 Comments

Hubble image of Helix Nebula with SPIRE data area outlined.

ESA announces that Herschel’s SPIRE instrument has detected OH+ in the outer reaches of of the Helix Nebula. Planetary nebula are the glowing remains of a system in which a star, similar to the Sun, dies forming a Red giant which expands, consuming the surrounding planets.  The article states that planetary nebula “have nothing to do with planets” because they imagine that all the lighter elements detectable in the outer fringes of the nebula are from the star.  However in a previous post, concerning a similar red giant star, CW Leonis, considerable water was detected, much to the surprise of the sciene team who state: “’What makes the results we are reporting so unusual is that we have found a cloud of water vapour around a star where we would not ordinarily have expected to find water,’ said Gary Melnick of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Massachusetts. ‘It seems that the water vapour comes from icy comets that are melting due to the heat from the star, which is much hotter than our Sun … There must be about four Earth-masses of frozen water around IRC+10216 to produce the vapour cloud we see.”  This makes clear the difficulty the scientists have in understanding the origin of all the water.  

As explained in my post concerning CW Leonis, the vast amount of water found in these planetary nebula definitely do ‘have to do with planets’ – the giant planets in the system, similar to Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune.  These four giant planets comprise 95 % of the mass in the solar system, but as yet not understood by astrophysicists, they are primarily water in the form of methane gas hydrates.  When a red giant consumes its entire system, the existing molecules are almost completely dissociated, but the two most abundant, chemically active atoms, hydrogen and oxygen, inevitably recombine to form water then become invisible, in the form of ice crystals which permeate space.

The Hot Breath of Venus

•June 4, 2014 • Leave a Comment
Cartoon of a HFA on Venus.  Image Credit NASA

Cartoon of a HFA on Venus. Image Credit NASA

The planet Venus is an enigma to the planetary science community.  The primary reason is their insistence on the uniformitarian paradigm, which is the belief (assumption?) that the solar system has been in its present form for billions of years.  This assumption corrupts the open-minded interpretation of data returned from every planetary probe.  As a result, Venus is imagined to be as ancient as the Earth, having lost its oxygen, oceans and biosphere due to a ‘runaway greenhouse effect’, a term coined by Carl Sagan and endlessly repeated by every PhD astrophysics candidate in order to get their degrees. This unproveable assumption leads to numerous difficulties in explaining Venus’ (a) extremely high surface temperature (hot enough to melt lead and zinc); (b) extremely high surface pressure (91 times that on the Earth); (c) extremely slow retrograde rotation, resulting in a single day lasting 254 Earth days; (d) the amazing revelation that Venus’ rotation period, measured by the ESA’s Venus Express VIRTIS infrared instrument has increased by 6.5 minutes relative to the measurements made by NASA Magellan probe only about a decade earlier; (e) complete lack of any global magnetic field.  All of which are explained by Venus’ recent creation from a high energy impact on Jupiter 6,000 years ago, witnessed by the entire world and described in a number of ancient texts. Cyclic Catastrophism explains that Venus’ interior is cooling by a heretofore unknown process – the high velocity jetting  of hot sulfur (S8 and larger sulfur allotropes) from over 200,000 ‘small domes’ (which NASA calls shield volcanoes) imaged by Magellan and Venera radars, to an elevation of 48 km where it crystallizes to form the ubuquitous lower cloud layer, which obscures the entire planet on both the day and night sides. The newly observed ‘Hot Breath of Venus’ are blasts of these hot gases ejected into space, called Hot Flow Anomalies (HFAs). Based on Venus Express data, these can be as large as the planet itself and can occur several times a day.  Because Venus’ interior is molten it has no global magnetic field. Therefore its atmosphere is compressed on the day side by the solar wind and these HFAs occur just above the ionosphere.   The jetting heavy gas carries with it a small amount of angular momentum, producing the high altitude winds that circle the entire planet in four days, also resulting in the recently measured slowing of Venus’ rotation. The HFAs occur at breaks in the high altitude winds where the hot gases rising from the surface penetrate into space. Because astrophysicists in general have no idea of this cooling process, they do not realize they have discovered what is slowing the rotation of planet.

John Ackerman’s old paper describing the cyclic catastrophism interpretation of the Pioneer Venus data was presented at the JGR Meeting in Washing D.C. in 2002.

John 15:18  If the world hates you, know that it hated me first.

New Impossible Exoplanet Announced

•June 2, 2014 • Leave a Comment

The NASA Kepler mission has discovered many exoplanets, but the latest data on Kepler 10c just does not fit the currently accepted hypotheses of planet creation. (Not a big surprise for Cyclic Catastrophism.) Kepler 10c is 2.35 times the Earth’s diameter, but has a mass 17.2 times that of our planet, making it a rocky planet, sort of a mega-Earth. Until now, astrophysicists believed that such a giant rocky planet was impossible because it’s strong gravitation would attract a large envelope of hydrogen gas, thus forming a gas-giant, like Jupiter and Saturn, currently imagined to have such cores. “We were very surprised when we realized what we had found.” stated Xavier Dumusque of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

Although every card-carrying astrophysicist in the world accepts the ‘gas giant’ hypothesis, the community has always harbored a nagging doubt concerning how gas giants could have formed.  Believing that a huge rocky core like Kepler 10c, or larger, had to form first, imposes an impossible time constraint on the process because observations of other star systems indicates that all their hydrogen is lost in the first million years. Quoting Natalie Batalha of NASA Ames “Just when you think you’ve got it all figured out, nature gives you a huge surprise.”  The candid revelation of this new finding is refreshing, in contrast to the Curiosity rover team’s obfuscation of potentially more surprising data.  The final nail in the ‘gas giant’ coffin will come from the Juno probe when it ‘sees’ the surface features on Jupiter.

Cyclic Catastrophism

The Cyclic Catastrophism scenario, published for some fifteen years, has claimed all along that Jupiter and Saturn are not gas giants, indeed, that no such planets exist. Rather that Jupiter and Saturn are solid, frozen, low density methane gas hydrate bodies, with atmospheres less than 1,000 km thick.  Moreover, that Jupiter, as indicated by its greater density (1.33), incorporates throughout, essentially all the heavy elements that were present at the formation of the solar system. The rocky terrestrial planets were each formed later from masses of elements ejected by unique high energy fusion explosions triggered by impacts on Jupiter. This is based on ancient observations of the creation of proto-Venus about 6,000 years ago.  The exception being Mercury, which is the former solid iron core of Mars, the two of which separated only 2,700 years ago, as millions of humans around the world watched in awe.


The presence of rocky planets in the Kepler-10 system implies unequivocally that there is a huge Jupiter-like methane gas hydrate planet in that system from which they were created. If it has not yet been detected, it is because such a giant planet is in an orbit comparable to that of Jupiter, with a period greater than 10 years, so it has not yet passed in front of its star, Kepler 10.

“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now [believe], while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”  Albert Einstein


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 39 other followers