[Music]
Our planet's Moon may be the most intriguing and mysterious object in the solar system.
Since the dawn of the space age and continuing to present day, countless
discoveries have forced dramatic ad-hoc adjustments to the story of the Moon's
history and origins. A new scientific paper published in the journal Nature adds to the list of puzzles.
A team of scientists recently analyzed a type of so-called asteroid known as an
Apollo which are rocks which come close to sharing Earth's orbit around the Sun.
This particular Apollo, called Kamo’oalewa is also called a quasi-satellite because
it stays close to our planet over long stretches of time and many orbits.
Using one of the most powerful telescopes on Earth at mount Graham
International Observatory, the team determined that Kamo’oalewa's spectrum is
remarkably similar to that of rocks from the Moon. This discovery distinguishes the object
from any known asteroid. Not surprisingly, the researchers favor
the hypothesis that the object broke off from the Moon as the result of a kinetic impact.
However, as with all scientific investigations into the Moon, the solar
system, and in fact the entire cosmos, countless assumptions govern and profoundly limit theoretical
interpretations. For well over half a century, most astronomers have accepted that the
Moon's heavily cratered surface is a result of periodic impacts over countless eons of time.
It is also believed that the Moon formed when Earth collided with another planet billions of years ago.
And yet, as scientific data improves with technological leaps, we see an endless
collision between popular scientific theory and science discovery.
As you will see in this presentation, a scientific foundation exists for a
radical reassessment of almost everything astronomers believe about the Moon's origins and history. If such a
reassessment does occur at the level of institutionalized science, unusual
objects such as Kamo’oalewa might finally be able to be seen in an entirely new light.
This presentation will discuss the concepts of an alternative cosmological
theory known as the Electric Universe. Generally speaking, this theory proposes
that electromagnetism and plasma play predominant roles in the formation of
celestial objects at all scales. This theory also proposes a radically
different recent history for our solar system. From this perspective, the craters we see
on objects such as our moon, were not produced by periodic impacts, but rather
resulted from interplanetary electrical discharge in a relatively recent epoch of planetary instability.
For any newcomer to this theory, our moon provides an ideal predictive testing
ground, and as you will see, a powerful evidential basis exists to warrant sober
investigation from institutionalized science. Let us first consider the
long-standing ancient impact theory of the Moon's origins. What does science
discovery now tell us about this popular notion? In 2020, the research published in a
major scientific paper severely undermines that hypothesis.
Over a decade ago a Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency spacecraft spent a
year and a half orbiting the Moon and collecting data. The spacecraft was
equipped with an Ion Mass Spectrometer and it detected something unexpected - an
abundance of carbon ions which were distributed over almost the entire Moon's surface.
The concentrations of the carbon ions were so high they could not be accounted
for by deposition of carbon by the solar wind. Dating back to the Apollo era,
astronomers had believed that the Moon had very little carbon ions since they
did not turn up in earlier mapping. The problem is, the standard theory of
the Moon's origins has always required a lack of volatiles such as carbon.
This problem for the theory is outlined in a 2020 Sciencealert report which
states, “The reason that's a problem for the lunar impact formation model - in
which a large body we call Theia collided with Earth sometime in the
early years of the Solar System, breaking off a chunk and sending it into Earth
orbit - is because volatiles have a low boiling point.” ”But the Theia collision would have
generated pretty intense temperatures between 4,000 and 6,000 Kelvin - which
should have partially vaporized the debris, and boiled away the volatiles,
producing what is known as a volatile- depleted ‘dry’ Moon.” However, on the Moon and with every rocky
body ever observed, a geological history, primarily built around periodic
collisions and explosions, has failed to predict discovery and has encountered
tremendous conundrums. Indeed, the question of how the Moon got
its craters, was one of the many debates in space science which were quote ”settled prematurely.”
As we entered the space age, the debate among geologists and astronomers only
considered two hypotheses - impacts and volcanism. After Apollo astronauts returned lunar
samples to Earth, analysis revealed a tremendous portion of the material was
composed of shocked and welded minerals. Thus, the impact origin of lunar craters
became the consensus scientific theory, and remains so today. And yet, like so much “settled science”,
discovery has reliably introduced new dilemmas in the form of surprises. In
2019, a scientific study threw into disarray conventional beliefs about the
largest and oldest so-called “impact crater” on the Moon. The lunar South Pole -Aitken basin is
roughly 2,500 kilometers in diameter and 13 kilometers deep which makes it one of
the largest so-called “impact craters” in the entire solar system. Scientists had
theorized that the basin contained minerals from the Moon's mantle since
the tremendous kinetic energy from the hypothetical impact would have pierced
the lunar crust and brought the materials to the surface. However, a team
of scientists studying data from the Chinese spacecraft Chang’ E-4's Rover,
have found that in reality the predominant mineral they have found is
common in the lunar soil, and thus have not found the expected minerals at such
a tremendous quote “impact site.” The co-author of a scientific study
published in the Geophysical Research Letters says of the findings, “We are not
seeing the mantle materials at the landing site as expected.” A Phys.org
report on the discovery states, “The new study complicates theories about how the
oldest, largest crater on the Moon formed... The new study complicates the certainty
of earlier findings and points towards a need for continued research on the far side's lunar surface...”
But of course scientific theories inevitably become complicated when only one theory is ever considered.
The Electric Universe has always proposed that our Moon was not born by
impact billions of years ago; nor are periodic impacts over countless eons the source of its craters.
The chief proponent of the Electric Universe, Australian physicist Wal
Thornhill has postulated that the Moon was born relatively recently by electrical discharge.
The Moon's surface is the product of electrical scarring - a hypothesis never
included in any debate on lunar geology. However, nothing found in the many
decades of lunar investigation is incompatible with the hypothesis.
Indeed, years before the first man walked on the Moon, in 1965 the amateur
astronomer Brian J. Ford published his laboratory experiments, suggesting that
craters on the Moon were carved by cosmic lightning bolts. In the cited
experiments, Ford used a spark machining apparatus to reproduce and miniature of
some of the most puzzling lunar features, including craters with central peaks;
small craters preferentially perched on the high rims of larger craters;
and craters strung out in long chains. He also observed that the ratio of large-
to-small craters on the Moon matched the ratio seen in electrical arcing.
And as with craters seen elsewhere in the solar system, Ford remarked on the
mystery of their typical extreme circularity. He noted that over 90
percent of lunar craters could not have been produced by side-swiping impacts.
So, planetary scientists concluded that the kinetic energy of an impactor must
simply be converted into powerful surface explosions. And yet highly circular craters are
routinely produced in the industrial process of electrical discharge
machining. Many years before Ford's published experiments and long before
the Apollo missions to the Moon Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky had made the
outrageous prediction that remanent magnetism would be found in the lunar rocks.
Astronomers had completely rejected the idea, since the Moon today has only a
very weak magnetic field, and is believed to have been geologically dead for a billion years.
But Velikovsky based his prediction on his hypothesis of recent planetary
catastrophe, when the Moon was scarred by interplanetary lightning between celestial bodies.
Like several other outrageous predictions by Velikovsky, it was proven correct.
Velikovsky's colleague, the engineer Ralph Juergens, also provided a remarkable
analysis which should have been included in the scientific debate on the Moon's
history and geological features. As you will now see, a review of Juergens’
extraordinary contribution is essential in any discussion of lunar geology.
One of the most puzzling features on the Moon is the sinuous rille which is a long
winding valley, usually with steep walls and often emerging from a crater.
This feature is pervasive on the Moon at dramatically different scales.
Prior to the Apollo missions, astronomers’ early hypotheses suggested that the
rilles were quote “cracks” on the Moon's surface. Later guesses included flowing water, until
scientists settled on flowing lava as the agent. Today, the accepted theory
is that the Moon's sinuous rilles were created, either by lava flowing across a
surface, or beneath the ground to form a lava tube, portions of which eventually collapsed.
Juergens compared the respective point-by-point requirements of various
competing theories versus the actual observed characteristics of the rilles.
Unlike planetary scientists, Juergens included among the possible agents high
energy electrical discharge. On every evidentiary point, the
electrical discharge hypothesis is either permissible or predictable.
And unlike every competing hypothesis, in not a single instance does the evidence
preclude electrical discharge as the cause of the rilles. Even prior to Juergens’ investigation,
several scientists had noted that flowing liquids, whether water or lava,
could not have caused the observed features of the lunar rilles, including
the strings of craters along the rilles’ floors. These points are dramatically emphasized
when we examine up close the Moon's famous Hadley Rille.
Today planetary scientists agree that the rille is a quote “collapsed lava tube”,
but the rille does not match the required characteristics of lava tubes on numerous points.
Most importantly, the collapsed areas of a lava tube will be rubble-filled depressions.
High-resolution images of the rille reveal no rubble and no collapsed tubes.
It is simply an empty, sharply-cut channel which matches the expected
characteristics of an electrical quote ”breakdown channel.” Perhaps the greatest problem for the
volcanic hypothesis of lunar rilles is their tremendous length.
On our own planet, the longest lava tube reaches only 65 kilometers.
That is about half the length of Hadley Rille which is 130 kilometers.
However, the exact opposite should be true. On Earth the atmosphere is insulating,
allowing lava to retain its heat. In the vacuum of space, heat will be much more
rapidly radiated away. On our planet, as lava flows over
distances no more than tens of kilometers, the cooling at the surface
causes a roof to form. It may then continue to flow as a tube beneath the surface.
That is the only way the lava tubes can achieve even their modest lengths.
Consider then the most prominent lunar rille called Schroeder's Valley,
185 kilometers long and up to 10 kilometers wide, with its depth at points
reaching up to 1300 meters. Flowing lava, eating away surface
material to cut a deep channel, would have to show up somewhere. We should see
either breaches in the deep walls, or evidence of abundant outflow.
Instead, the channel simply dwindles until it disappears. Curiously, the flow of rilles on the Moon
and other worlds isn't limited to downhill, like lava- and water-carved channels on
Earth. All fluid erosion theories for Schroeder's Valley have chosen to ignore
that the apparent mouth of the stream is on high ground, and the narrowest part of
the channel is on low ground. We also note that within Schroeder's
Valley is a much more narrow secondary rille whose defining feature is a chain of small craters.
Again, if the Moon was indeed ravaged by high energy electrical discharge, nothing
found in decades of study of samples of lunar rocks and soil is inconsistent with the hypothesis.
This includes the discovery of glass spherules and chondrules found in
abundance in the lunar soil. The afore- mentioned so-called asteroid Kamo’oalewa
need not have been produced by a kinetic impact with a lunar surface.
As Wal Thornhill has suggested in a private communication, the object's very
Earth-like orbit, as well as its modest inclination to the ecliptic, suggests it
may have escaped the Moon due to an electrical discharge with a body, also
moving in the ecliptic plane. More than anything, the lesson we can
learn from many decades of investigation into the Moon is this: A cosmology that
relies on collisions and explosions has found more problems than support in science discovery.
Problems that might only be resolved by a new understanding of our Electric Universe.
[Music]