Scientists Also Now Think the Earth Migrated

[andy lloyd]

Migration of planets is the new zeitgeist. Academic astronomers and
science commentators are fighting an increasingly rearguard action to
fend off the accusation that new theories of solar system formation
are sounding ever more Sitchinite. Why? Because the solar system
appears to be a far more complex beast than the old theories allowed,
and discoveries in other extra-solar planetary systems indicate the
central importance of catastrophism. Many astronomers now believe
that star systems kick out planets routinely during their formation,
and also, due to the subsequent abundance of free-floating planets,
draw new planets in.

Well, that whole concept is equal in every way to Sitchin's theory
from 1976. And now we're moving one step closer towards a union of
science and Sitchin, as Earth's origins themselves are considered:

""Planets don't like to stay still, they like to move," said David
Minton of Purdue University at the Space Telescope Science Institute
in Baltimore, Md., on April 10. This is proven by the discovery of
hundreds of extrasolar planets that reinforce a radical new idea that
would have never even been considered in the 1950s: Planet migration
seems the rule rather than the exception among the stars. This
explains the estimate of billions of "hot Jupiters," which are
predicted to have moved to orbits precariously close to their stars -
to the point of evaporating away. More recent discoveries find pure
water planets that must have migrated in toward their sun as ice
balls." (1)

As my friend Lee succinctly put it, "This fella has it ass-backward,
but it shows they're trying to understand why Earth is where it
is" (2). What he means by this is that the David Minton thinks the
Earth migrated from a more inner location, whereas we think there is
strong evidence that the opposite is true, i.e. that Earth migrated
after a catastrophic event from the region of the asteroid belt. But
the underlying principle is the same. And if the conservatives in the
science community feel uncomfortable with all this, then it's tough.
If facts move us in the direction of Sitchin's Nibiru being a real
possibility, then they should be open to that, no matter what their
prejudices may allow.

Andy Lloyd, 21st April 2012

Reference:

1) Ray Villard "Was Earth a Migratory Planet?" 18th April 2012
http://news.discovery.com/space/was-earth-a-migratory-planet-120418.html
with thanks to Lee

2) Correspondence from Lee Covino, 20th April 2012

[Alan Cornette]

     In the beginning, the early formation of our solar system was very unbalanced as per Sitchin's description of Tiamat causing planetary chaos. Physical turmoil exists in any newly-formed solar system, and it appears logical that within the uncountable number of star systems in our galaxy alone there could have been many body ejections into empty space. Enumerable bodies of such nature could later join an alien system as indicated by Marduk being captured by our system.

     As Andy and many of you realize, I'm more and more convinced of the dominating force of electrical energy in the vastness of space. At this point, my belief is that gravity and electromagnetics must co-exist in stability within any solar system. Einstein's goal with his "thought experiments" was to mathematically unite the two forces with his Unified Field Theory. He died still searching because "he had no knowledge of the plasma universe and took no account of the electrical nature of matter."

     A balanced system of planets - nearly circular orbits - will produce no obvious or dramatic effects so their electric potential is minimal. In a somewhat simplified analysis: a copper wire that has no current flow has no electric potential until a current is introduced into one end. By doing this you've changed the electric potential. This why Marduk glowed with a halo as he approached the sun. He had adjusted to the much less plasma-charged density of the far reaches of his orbit and when approaching the highly-charged area of the sun, literally "turned on" as a light bulb because of the huge potential difference between he and the sun.

     Obviously, all star systems, the stars themselves, and the universe, are always in a state of flux. The element of what we label "time" is the confusing factor. Remember two points: 1.) A microsecond in a laboratory becomes a thousand years in our system, or millions of years in the universe.  And 2.) The size relationship between our sun and its nearest neighbor (Alpha Centaurus) is comparable to two minute grains of sand over 4 miles apart! Gravity is immeasurable between the two. This is why I have trouble believing that a "nearby" star could dislodge a comet-like body from the outer reaches of our solar system.

     An outcast planetary body could "float" peacefully in a space void between stars and galaxies for millions of years until it approaches a positive-charged star. Then, very interesting events begin to occur. Gravity and electrical forces interact and the system a rogue planet encounters is very susceptible to change. That is our situation. That is our destiny, and I believe the Great Pyramid, Stonehenge, and other ancient constructions around the globe were constructed for our understanding and appreciation for life. Perhaps we should feel fortunate to have lived in one of the "quiet" periods of this state of flux. Enjoy while we can.  Al C.

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dark Star Planet X" group.
To post to this group, send email to dark-star...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to dark-star-plane...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/dark-star-planet-x?hl=en.

[Lee]

And this also fits with the binary star (or Dark Star) theory. 

 

There's a great graphic here:  http://www.binaryresearchinstitute.org/bri/research/evidence/sheeredge.shtml

 

The elecrtic universe theory interacts nicely with this...

--Lee

________________________________________
PeoplePC Online
A better way to Internet
http://www.peoplepc.com

[mk23666]

On Saturday, April 21, 2012 1:07:37 PM UTC-4, Lee wrote:

And this also fits with the binary star (or Dark Star) theory. 

 

There's a great graphic here:  http://www.binaryresearchinstitute.org/bri/research/evidence/sheeredge.shtml

 

The elecrtic universe theory interacts nicely with this...

--Lee

Nice site. Well thought out theory.

[Barry Warmkessel]

Many astronomers now believe that star systems kick out planets routinely during their formation, and also, due to the subsequent abundance of free-floating planets, draw new planets in.

Well, at least the mainstream astronomers are starting to use their imagination a tiny bit.

Simply examining the orbits of the Jovians and most of the terrestrials, The orbits are fairly circular and there not likely captures. The exceptions are Mercury, Pluto and Eris. The later two are captures because they were formed in a circular orbit about the dark star, but were captured by the Sun because it was so much more massive. This is why their orbit are so inclined and egg shaped. Eris is inclined at 44 degs because Vulcan's orbital inclination to the ecliptic is about 48 degrees (but when the planes were formed it was likely closer to 45 deg.)  A passing star tilted Vulcan's orbit a few degrees more than the original 45 deg.

The PBH (Primordial Black Holes) formed first, then heavy elements and finally lighter elements like Hydrogen.  Matter accumulated around the ultra tiny PBH, but the electrons could not get through the tiny black hole.  As the seeds 'Bulked Up', dark matter solar systems were formed roaming around the galaxy

The reason why the original orbits were so circular is because they were formed at the quantum level.  PBH seeds were shaken of the Sun PBH when Vulcan's PBH co-orbited the Sun's PBH. The seed for Uranus was formed first, Venus last (not sure about Mercury) As the Universe grew bigger, there was room for another closer orbit to form.  Only circular quantum orbits were originally permitted, but some slight variations occurred as the solar system aged.   

Finally, when these dark matter solar systems found a hydrogen gas cloud, that gas was sucked up, with the Sun getting the most of it. At about 8% solar mass, the Sun lit up, but it still kept sucking up the hydrogen.  Tiny Vulcan, half as massive as Jupiter, did not get much of the hydrogen.  Jupiter, being closer to the Sun, got more thus implying that Vulcan is a somewhat terrestrial like planet, not a Jovian like planet.

About half the stars in the galaxy are Sun/Vulcan like arrangements, but the orbits vary all over the place. Often, their orbits draw their Vulcan close to the ignited star, and they are viewed as 'hot Jupiter'. One lit star could have several 'Vulcans'. The Vulcan companions, whether lit or not, are captures and thus are probably not in circular orbits in  most cases.

The planet seeding concept was advanced by Madam Blavatsky in the late 1800's.  Hawking invented the PBH concept. I just performed the 'Wedding Ceremony'.

http://www.yaridanjo.warmkessel.com/sunsplan.html

OUR SOLAR SYSTEM

> Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2012 03:49:46 -0700
> Subject: Scientists Also Now Think the Earth Migrated
> From: andy...@hotmail.com
> To: dark-star...@googlegroups.com

[semaj...@googlemail.com]

If you think more about the electric universe theory in very deep way and think of space time as a fabric then you don't need pbh's to form black holes! Also the only other problem with that barry mate is hydrogen is the most basic element and the most abundant that we know of to date in the universe. It also supports the electric universe theory to me that it would be the first element and the fual for the stars witch is what we see, if pbh's existed then there is nothing stopping them becoming monsters that means all planets would either become blackholes or explode, this is what we see in stars and not planets, black holes don't explode. Horkins theory didn't work. But I don't know you could be right I suppose.

------------------

---

From: Barry Warmkessel <yari...@hotmail.com>

Sender: dark-star...@googlegroups.com

Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2012 23:33:12 +0000

To: Andy Loydd<andy...@hotmail.com>; Dark Star<dark-star...@googlegroups.com>

ReplyTo: yari...@hotmail.com

Subject: RE: Scientists Also Now Think the Earth Migrated

[semaj...@googlemail.com]

If you think more about the electric universe theory in very deep way and think of space time as a fabric then you don't need pbh's to form planets! Also the only other problem with that barry mate is hydrogen is the most basic element and the most abundant that we know of to date in the universe. It also supports the electric universe theory to me that it would be the first element and the fual for the stars witch is what we see, if pbh's existed then there is nothing stopping them becoming monsters that means all planets would either become blackholes or explode, this is what we see in stars and not planets, black holes don't explode. Horkins theory didn't work. But I don't know you could be right I suppose.

------------------

---

From: Barry Warmkessel <yari...@hotmail.com>

Sender: dark-star...@googlegroups.com

Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2012 23:33:12 +0000

To: Andy Loydd<andy...@hotmail.com>; Dark Star<dark-star...@googlegroups.com>

ReplyTo: yari...@hotmail.com

Subject: RE: Scientists Also Now Think the Earth Migrated