Proto-Venus Reformed the Solar System

•October 14, 2018 • Comments Off on Proto-Venus Reformed the Solar System

Fig. 1. Venus and Mercury ‘cavorting’ circa 4th Century BC

As discussed in the previous post proto-Venus first raged throughout the inner solar system less than 6000-years ago, which at that date comprised only a dinosaur-laden Earth and Mars in an interior orbit full of life as we know it today. Although the interaction of Venus with Mars prior to the 3,000-year Vedic Period, was described in myth as Indra (Mars) smashing the foot of Agni (incandescent Venus), its encounter with Mercury at the end of the Vedic Period was characterized as a more intimate one. It was even recorded as a piece of art (Figure 1). Two posts (2013),  post1 and  post2 , explained the clues left behind by Venus on Mercury.

In both instances, Venus left behind significant crime scene evidence, cosmic DNA. As discussed in the last installment, it took the form of the Medusae Fossae Formation on Mars but in the case of Mercury the same ‘DNA’ was deposited. However, because Mercury was super hot and dry, Venus’ hot sulfurous basalt deposit had only the magnetic field of Mercury with which to interact.

After ninety-nine captures and releases of Mars in its familiar geostationary orbit of the Earth, when the transfer of all its life-forms, crust, oceans, heavy elements, atmosphere and vegetation to the Earth was complete (687 BC), Mars’ solid core left the planet for the last time. It did not have a chance to zoom around the Earth and catch up to Mars as on the last ninety-nine encounters because it was attracted to Venus. Some romantics might believe it was due to her great beauty, but not to spoil the story it was her rta (gravitational attraction in the RgVeda). The two of them ‘cavorted’ for a couple of hundred years, eventually tiring and settling into their current orbits.

Fig. 2 Mercury’s north pole region with 1000 km basalt rise in foreground radar image is the deposit from proto-Venus.

When the core exited Mars, it had a powerful magnetic field, which has declined considerably in the last 2,300 years because the solid state superconductors within it needed to be under super-high pressure. (see Death of the Dynamo). But Venus’ basalt deposit near Mercury’s north pole became highly magnetized as it approached, cooled and hardened. MESSENGER imaged the deposit (Figure 2) and its magnetic field instruments discovered that the deposit has a much stronger field than the declining field in the interior of the core, now known as Mercury. The cited paper cannot explain the fact that the magnetic field of the deposit is opposite the internal magnetic field of Mercury. This was due to the gaseous form of the deposit cooling and forming miniature dipoles in space before contacting the surface. These became oriented opposite to the field of the planet before landing on the surface, that is, with their north poles oriented toward Mercury’s south, since opposite poles attract.

Fig. 3.  Mercurian Grid in Mariner 10 image 1973

At the time of its final ejection of the solid iron core from Mars, Mercury was covered with a sulfur-iron surface from the mantle which adhered to it. This surface layer contained many parallel grooves scratched across its surface by the rigid rocks on the north and south edges of the Valles Marineris from which it exited (Figure 3), but had yet no impact craters on its surface. This was seen from Earth and expressed in Greek myth which stated that Hermes (Mercury) invented the Lyre. The many craters now visible on Mercury formed by rocks blasted from Mars during its encounters with the Earth, which missed the Earth and have been falling toward the Sun for the last  6 to 2.6 millennia.

Venus final state is expressed in Isaiah 14:12-17 

“How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell (tartarus, a place of restraint in the Septuagint)), to the sides of the pit. They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the body that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms; That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?”

Update of a Venus deposit on Mars

•October 9, 2018 • Comments Off on Update of a Venus deposit on Mars

Fig. 1 Extent of Medusae Fossae Formation & S/Cl color-coded from cited paper.

A recent post (July 13th) discussed an interesting ‘deposit’ on Mars’ surface and cited a published paper giving details. A new paper, “The Medusae Fossae Formation as the single largest source of dust on Mars” by Lujendra Ojha et al., (referencing 70 papers) concludes as stated, that this single ‘formation’ is the origin of most of the dust on Mars surface to this day. The analysis is simplified by the enormous extent of the deposit, its obvious erosion by wind (yardangs) and the unique ratio of sulfur to chlorine (S/Cl) in the deposit which is measurably present over the entire surface of the planet. The authors state:

“The estimated size of the deposit, prior to its global distribution, is estimated at  5 × 106 km2. The current mean thickness of the MFF exceeds 600 m. A comparable mean thickness between 100 and 600 m over the eroded areas would imply an eroded volume exceeding 3 × 105–1.8 × 106 km3. If distributed globally, this eroded volume of the MFF would be equivalent to a 2–12 m global layer of dust.”

Fig. 2. The MFF proximity to the Tharsis Bulge. Also from the cited paper

The low density and transparency to radar have led to the conclusion that it is similar to tephra, usually formed when hot liquid lava shoots from the Earth and comes in contact with water. However, there is no evidence of active volcanism and the wide extent of the MFF is not characteristic of volcanic activity. Analysis of deposits close to large volcanoes do not show the characteristic S/Cl ratio of the MFF and its distribution across the entire surface of Mars.

Cyclic Catastrophism, based on the ancient myths of diverse cultures, particularly the oldest, the RgVeda, explained in my earlier post, proto-Venus gravitationally deflected Mars from its ancient orbit, similar to Venus’ today, to an orbit which intersected that of the Earth. When both were visible as worlds, proto-Venus, which was an incandescent liquid planet at 10,000 K, was drawn into a droplet shape, with the pointed end extending toward Mars. This white-hot sulfurous liquid material struck the living surface of Mars covered with oceanic waters. The sulfur was the liqiud rocky-iron surface of proto-Venus which is outgassing sulfur to this day and the chlorine was from the salty water on the surface of Mars. The explosion was witnessed by every culture on Earth and recorded in their myths.

This same event raised the Tharsis Bulge on Mars as evidenced by their proximity in Figure 2. The Bulge was an important factor in the process of transferring life from Mars to the Earth in the next 3,000-years because it forced the lithosphere of Mars to rotate with Tharsis remaining on its equator and thereby its north pole facing the Earth during each geostationary orbit, called a kalpa in the RgVeda. and the tekhi-Horus periods or inundations in Egypt. These events occurred after 4000 BC, before the Bible was composed.

The authors of the cited paper do not give an origin of the MFF, but mired in the geology of Charles Lyell and the uniformitarianism of James Hutton, do suggest it is 500 million years old.

Jupiter’s Atmospheric Bulge!

•October 6, 2018 • Comments Off on Jupiter’s Atmospheric Bulge!

Fig. 1. New Juno image from the South pole shows atmospheric bulge on limb.

Juno has produced an amazing photo of Jupiter, which displays a raised belt of dust that surrounds the middle latitudes. This confirms the Cyclic Catastrophism hypothesis that the atmosphere comprises heavy-element particulate aerosols (dust) continuously being released from the Methane Gas Hydrate surface by a fusion reaction at 22° S Latitude ~50,000 km east of the GRS. The particles exit through the GRS, producing the unexpected high temperature and density of the upper atmosphere, but settle to the surface as fast as they are produced and have been accumulating on the MGH surface for many years thereby producing tesseral (E-W) gravity anomalies currently interpreted as ‘flows’ in the ‘interior’. The image reveals the thin but noticeable equatorial bulge on the limb, which is a different color than the rest of the planet.

The dust belt only extends to about 70° S Latitude. Poleward of this limit, the blue southern ocean is visible, due to the melting of the Methane Gas Hydrate surface layer by the energy of the 5 MeV helion torus which produces the far UV helion Lyman forest auroral oval.

Doth not wisdom cry and understanding put forth her voice?

Solving a Cosmic Conundrum

•September 29, 2018 • Comments Off on Solving a Cosmic Conundrum

fig. 1. TW Hydrae proto-planetary disk around a proto-star with planets already present.

A new study, using the European Southern Observatory, presents evidence overthrowing another long held assumption concerning the formation of planetary systems – that the terrestrial planets accumulated from clouds of dust surrounding the young star. The work was accomplished by astronomers led by Carlo Manara of the European Southern Observatory in Munich, Germany,

Using Atacama Large Millimeter Array (ALMA), a radio observatory in the Atacama Desert in Chile, to penetrate obscuring dust, the group has compared the masses of several hundred different protoplanetary disks around young stars between 1 million and 3 million years old to the masses of confirmed exoplanets and exoplanetary systems around older stars of equivalent size. The disk masses were often much less than the total exoplanet mass—sometimes 10 or 100 times lower.

Although such findings have been reported before for a few star systems, the study is the first to point out the mismatch over several hundred different systems. “I think what this work does is really set this as a fact,” Manara says.

How Does this Relate to Jupiter?

This work makes clear that the terrestrial planets in our system, and all other systems cannot possibly have formed from the scant planetary disks around the young star. The solution to this conundrum is in dozens of posts on this site. That is, the giant planets are formed in the cold recesses of Large Dark Nebulae, where the full range of heavy elements in dust particles, the surfaces of which act as catalysts for the formation of molecules and crystals, become encapsulated in highly deuterated Methane Gas Hydrate clathrate bodies at < 50 K.  These giant planets form before the central proto-star ignites. For example, Figure 1 from ALMA shows a proto-star TW Hydrea, in which fusion has not yet begun, surrounded by a proto-planetary disc in which two giant planets are already present.

The original solar system was only the four giant planets comprising methane gas hydrate clathrate with the full range of heavy elements. The only hydrogen and helium in the atmosphere of Jupiter is a small amount that has been released from its solid, highly deuterated, low density, Methane Gas Hydrate by a fusion reaction left behind by the impact, 6,000-years BP, out of which (proto) Venus was born.  This event demonstrated how all terrestrial planets, including Mars and Earth were formed (Mercury was the original core of Mars, which left permanently in 687 BC). These impacts were exponentially enhanced by the fusion explosion of massive amounts of deuterium which continues to this day. The nominal composition of MGH is (CH4)4(H2O)23, thus Jupiter is ~85% water by mass, explaining very simply why planets like the Earth are covered with water and why all the giant planets have massive amount of methane in their atmospheres. See Juno – Evidence of a Solid Jupiter  by John Ackerman.

The molal levels of Hydrogen and HElium were ‘measured’ by the Galileo atmospheric probe using index of refraction of samples, assuming they were the only significant gases in the atmosphere, therefore the measurement is was not valid.  The concentration of deuterium , (2.1 ± 0.4) 10−5, measured by (SWS) on the Infrared Space Observatory (ISO) does not include that encapsulated in the MGH, the fusion of which is responsible for the excess luminosity, wind bands, and powerful magnetic field of Jupiter. The proposed high deuterium content of the giant planets suggests that the initial fusion reaction in the Sun, which formed in the same Large Dark Nebula, was not the fusion of four protons to form a helium nucleus plus two protons as currently believed, since the reaction of D + H -> 3He++ + 4.98 MeV, now taking place on the surface of Jupiter, would have occurred at a much lower temperature.

Einstein On Epistomology of Science (annotated)

Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things easily achieve such an authority over us that we forget their earthly origins and accept them as unalterable givens. Thus they come to be stamped as “necessities of thought,” “a priori givens,” etc. The path of scientific advance is often made impassable for a long time through such errors. For that reason, it is by no means an idle game if we become practiced in analyzing the long commonplace concepts [gas giants, solar system 4.6 years old] and exhibiting those circumstances upon which their justification and usefulness depend, how they have grown up, individually, out of the givens of experience. By this means, their all-too-great authority will be broken. They will be removed if they cannot be properly legitimated, corrected if their correlation with given things be far too superfluous, replaced by others if a new system can be established that we prefer for whatever reason. (Einstein 1916, 102)


The Shape of Jupiter

•September 21, 2018 • Comments Off on The Shape of Jupiter

Fig. 1 Jupiter plume (Juno) 6000 BP

Fig. 2 900 AD

Fig. 3 Mass Ejection Ceased 1935

Figures 1, 2, and 3 give a brief history of the impact plume left behind on Jupiter after the birth of Venus in 6,000 BP. Figure 2 is a drawing in an Arabic document from 900 AD labelled “having the nature of Jupiter”. Figure 3 is a plot of the rapid monotonic slowing of the rotation of Jupiter, which suddenly ceased when the fusion reaction was no longer sufficiently powerful to eject mass (angular momentum) into space. The rotation then sped up for thirty years as the inflated atmosphere contracted and has now settled into the same rate measured by its magnetic field signature.

The oblateness of Jupiter and Saturn were discussed in a previous post. They are calculated using the polar and equatorial diameters at the cloud-tops. The difference of these two diameters in modern times is not great enough that the planet appears oblate in NASA images. However, in the 1660s, 275 years before the rotational slowing occurred, Giovanni Cassini, one of the earliest astronmers to telescopically observe Jupiter, wrote that Jupiter was ‘oblate‘. These data points are the basis of the Cyclic Catastrophism view of Jupiter.

.Jupiter’s Gravity

The Juno probe has generated a much more accurate record of Jupiter’s shape. A NASA computer model of the expected internal mass distribution of Jupiter based on the gas giant hypothesis assumes the planet is spherically and hemispherically symmetric. The N-S radial distribution of mass is expressed by even zonal harmonic coefficients J2 , J4 , J6 , J8 etc. If Jupiter were a ‘gas giant’ the Juno data should produce values of these coeffients which are very small. However, two different values found are J4 = -586 and J6 = 34.4.  Based on these deviations Juno scientists concluded that “atmospheric and internal dynamics can produce small density perturbations that result in a more complex gravity representation”. The “atmospheric dynamics” are related to the colored wind bands visible in photographs of Jupiter (the origin of which cannot be explained in the ‘gas giant’ hypothesis). ‘Internal dynamics’ refers to motions within a hypothetical liquid, electrically conducting hydrogen interior, but this has been discounted by  by the gravity data (Giullot, Hubbard et al.)”We find that the deep interior of the planet rotates nearly as a rigid body, with differential rotation decreasing by at least an order of magnitude compared to the atmosphere.” This amounted to a major concession by the principle ‘gas giant’ theorists because the data from Juno were expected to reveal the presence of a ~25-earth-mass rocky-iron solid core , a crucial aspect of the ‘gas giant’ hypothesis. One last-gasp explanation for this is that the rocky-iron core has ‘dissolved’ in the hot hydrogen/helium interior, thought to be 25,000 K based on the surface temperature. The current academic view is that Jupiter’s atmosphere is at least 3,000 km deep.


Cyclic Catastrophism explains the unexpected values in a completely different way. The important aspects concerning the measured gravity explanation are:

(a) Consistent with rigid body finding, Jupiter and the other giant planets are highly deuterated, solid, low density Methane Gas Hydrate (MGH) planets that formed cold (< 50 K) in a Large Dark Nebula where deuterium is known to be concentrated and methane gas hydrates form readily.

(b) MGH is a clathrate which physically (not chemically) encapsulates all the heavy elements and molecules (e.g. CH4) inside cages comprising twelve or more water molecules, nominally (CH4)4(H2O)23 Thus Jupiter is ~85% water by mass.

(c) Impacts on the giant planets trigger fusion reactions of the deuterium and protons at the impact sites, as demonstrated by the emission spectra of many heavy elements in 1994 by the impacts of Shoemaker-Levy 9.

(d) Fusion reactions left behind on its solid surface, such as the one 6,000-years BP out of which proto-Venus was born, can burn for thousands of years demonstrating the enormous deuterium content and explaining the ubiquitous presence of methane in the atmospheres of all four giant planets. Little deuterium is measured in the atmosphere because it is consumed in the fusion reaction.

(e) The heat of the fusion reaction on the surface of Jupiter at the proto-Venus impact site, approximately 700-km below the cloud-tops,~50,000 km east of the Great Red Spot is currently releasing the complete range of known elements from the MGH, which form solid particle aerosols as they rise, cool and exit from the Great Red Spot. These comprise the colored clouds which obscure Jupiter’s surface at mid latitudes, currently imagined to be ammonia ice.

(f) The airborne heavy aerosols exit through the Great Red Spot and form an elevated belt around Jupiter at latitudes centered on the Great Red Spot 22° S Lat. This atmospheric belt does not extend to the polar areas. (See Jupiter’s Jiutsu Belt and Oceans)


(g) The heavy aerosols settle to the surface as fast as they are released by the fusion heat where they have been accumulating at least since 1935 (Figure 3). Their distribution is centered at the GRS latitude, 20° S, explaining the negative, pear-shaped, J4 = -586. and to a lesser degree are concentrated below the belts where the surface vortices (not linear winds), constrained by the solid surface of Jupiter, join and the horizontal winds are minimal. 

(h) The J6 = 34.4 is due to the canonical jet stream in the equatoril zone, the high winds of which prevent the heavy aerosols from settling to the surface.

Fig. 4 Possible magnetic field anomalies suggested early in the Juno mission.

The odd numbered tesseral E-W harmonics J3 , J5 , J7, J9  are currently believed by Juno scientists to mark ‘flows’ in the interior since the gas giant hypothesis does not allow permanent features. Now that Juno has completed 15 passes, there is sufficient data lapping in the gravity and magnetic fields to show that the supposed ‘flows’ have not moved or changed shape. This problem is not being directly addressed out in papers, but as more data is collected to fill in between the earlier passes, this problem is becoming more and more difficult for the ‘gas giant’ hypothesis to explain. Cyclic catastrophism explains that these features are huge craters formed by the impacts out of which Venus was recently created (50,000 km east of the GRS) and Mars and the Earth billions of years ago. The impact craters were obviosly huge but would have been filled in by water, but not enough to attain the planetary datum. They would produce both gravity and magnetic field anomalies because of the total mass lost in each event. The dust particles settling on the surface would also have effected the magnetic field in the same zones.

Note: See  Jupiter’s magnetic field.

Layers on Mars Confirm Cyclic Catastrophism

•September 20, 2018 • Comments Off on Layers on Mars Confirm Cyclic Catastrophism

Fig. 1. Mars South Pole Layered Deposits

A paper in Geophysical Research Letters (2017), titled “A subsurface depocenter in the South Polar Layered Deposits of Mars” by J. L. Whitten1 , B. A. Campbell1 , and G. A. Morgan discusses many layers of alternating dust and ice that cover an area the size of Alaska at Mars’ south pole, designated its’ South Pole Layered Deposits (SPLD). Consistent with the uniformitarian assumption of geology, they interpret these layers as a record of the climate history of Mars over at least the last 7–100 Myr.

As discussed in a number of posts on this site, Cyclic Catastrophism explains that Mars was captured in a geostationary orbit of the Earth for 14.4 years and then released into a planetary ‘resting’ orbit for 15.6 years and that this cycle was repeated ninety-nine or one hundred times, (3687 to 687 BC). The most significant aspect of these capture periods relative to the SPLDs, was that during each capture period, called a kalpa in the RgVeda and an inundation in  Egypt, the entire Martian lithosphere was forced to rotate with its north pole facing the Earth, therefore its south pole being exposed to tropical sunlight every day. At each release its lithosphere returned to its normal orientation, allowing the return of normal freezing weather at its south pole.

While the northern hemisphere of Mars was blasting all its life-supporting materials to the Earth, including its water during each kalpa, its south pole became a desert. These repeated cycles produced the equally thick, rythmic deposits of ice and dust at Mars south pole shown in Figure 1.

 “To be ignorant of what occurred before you were born is to remain always a child. For what is the worth of human life, unless it is woven into the life of our ancestors by the records of history?”
― Marcus Tullius Cicero


How Much Helium on Jupiter?

•September 17, 2018 • Comments Off on How Much Helium on Jupiter?

Jupiter has been thought to comprise 90% hydrogen and 10% helium since 1930 due to the detection of spectra of methane and ammonia by Rupert Wildt. His model comprised a solid core of rock and metal surrounded by a layer of ice and a thick gaseous envelope. Based on the elements thought to have been created at the big bang, the composition the gaseous envelope has been proposed to be similar. The Galileo atmospheric probe was designed to measure the mole fraction, used for gases, and the mass fraction of helium, because this was thought to provide information supporting the idea that all hydrogen and helium was created at the big bang, and since it has not, is now claimed to provide information on the way in which planets are formed.

Surprizingly, the instrument designed to determine the mole fraction, called the Helium Abundance Detector (HAD) measured only the index of refraction of samples of atmospheric gases captured in a cell compared with a similar reference cell.  This is stated in the paper published about the measurement   “Helium in Jupiter’s atmosphere: Results from the Galileo probe Helium Interferometer Experiment”, by U. von Zahn, D. M. Hunten and G. Lehmacher.

“Among the seven scientific probe instruments was our HAD instrument. Its approach to measure accurately the Jovian He2 ratio was based on the following considerations: more than 99.5% of the Jovian atmosphere consists of hydrogen and helium. Hence, to a first approximation, we can consider this atmosphere to be a binary gas mixture, for which the mole fraction qHe of helium can be derived from the ratio of refractive indices.”

Note the word “considerations” to disguise its harsher meaning “assumptions”. The instrument was designed based on the assumption that Jupiter is comprised of hydrogen and helium!

An obvious problem with this is apparent in color photographs of Jupiter, which is covered with clouds of various colors, the elements of which they are comprised have never been identified spectroscopically. This means that they are crystalline or dust. If so, they are denser than hydrogen and helium and are falling to the surface as fast as they are produced.

Moreover, cyclic catastrophism claims that the elements comprising them are continuously being released from the Methane Gas Hydrate and that process has continued for thousands of years. The presence of these heavy elements has a major impact on the Helium mole fraction , qHE and the Helium mass fraction Y, below.. The following are the results quoted in the same paper:

“In calculating the HAD results, we presume that the abundance ratio He/H2 is constant throughout the pressure range under study. The value of the measured helium abundance can be expressed numerically in various ways.  These are shown in (7)-(10).

The helium mole fraction qHe, also mixing ratio (equal to the ratio of He atom number density over total atom and molecule number densities), is
qHe = N(He) / (N(H2)+ N(He)+ N(heavy  elements)) = 0.1359 +/- 0.0027   ”

Here we note that the number density of heavy elements at Jupiter is so small that its rigorous inclusion in the calculation of qHe does not affect the value given above. The same cannot be said of the contribution of the mass of heavy elements in calculating Y (see below).

Abundance ratio R of helium (He) relative to hydrogen (H2) (equal to the ratio of He atom number density over H2 molecule number density) is

R = N(He) / N(H2) = 0.157+/- 0 .003

The ratio of helium mass density over the sum of helium and hydrogen mass densities is

m(He) / (m (H2) + m (He)) = 0.238 +/- 0 .005

The helium mass fraction Y (equal to the helium mass densitover the total mass density) is

Y = m (He) /(m ( H2 )+ m ( He ) + m (heavy elements)) = 0.005                 ”