ALWAYS THE MOON'S FACE?

Have you ever wondered why we only see the face of the Moon?

The fact that the Moon’s Face is the side of the orb that always shows itself to the Earth is a phenomena that appears to have never been explained. A simple statement that the rotation takes roughly 28 days; thereby, strangely equaling the time to orbit our planet seems too farfetched to be chance. The odds against this “just happening” was too hard for me to swallow.

When you look at the rotation to orbit patterns of other bodies that we can observe, you do not see this kind of accuracy. After all, Earth only moves 1/365th (approximately) around the Sun per day. Mercury, Venus, Mars, and so on, all display rotation to orbit patterns similar to Earth’s. No planetary body in our solar system follows the Moon’s unusual pattern with regard to the Sun. As a matter of fact, our solar system exhibits an earthlike rotation to orbit pattern with our galaxy.

At this point, I will admit that I have not researched other moons in our solar system to see if our Moon’s pattern is common among planet-orbiting bodies. For all I know, this happens to every moon. Maybe moons only show one side, if you will, to their parent planet. A possible common attributed that should be looked into. Maybe you are the one to find out. If you do, please tell me what you find. Heck, you might win a Noble Prize.

In the above picture, you see the Moon’s interior as NASA currently presents it. You will notice the crust surrounding a hot, molten center without a hard core. This lack of a hard core makes sense with regard to the Moon’s extremely weak electromagnetic field and its very thin (barely there) atmosphere.

This above representation of the Moon’s interior appears like any other planet’s interior. However, there are some problems with this type of interior. First, there is not a corresponding electromagnetic field and atmosphere to go with it. With a core in the middle, the Moon would probably be generating a stronger magnetic field as a result of a dynamo effect. Second, Albert Einstein once used the stirring of a cup of tea to describe an effect he was trying to opine about. While his demonstration does not apply in point to this topic, it does help to argue that a core as we normally know them is not in the Moon. Albert used the scenario to show what happens to heavy matter in a vortex. He said, if you stir tea in a cup, the leaves will gather together in the center. Despite the thought that the material would succumb to centrifugal force and end up in the outer areas of the cup, it works. Just try it.

With that in mind, it is simple to see how a body rotating at a fast rate could form a core in the middle that is made up of the heaviest material in the molten middle. However, the Moon is not rotating at any rate of speed even close to that which is displayed by planets. This high rotational rate would be needed to center up the heavy material. Does that mean that the Moon does not have any material in its molten center that is heavier than the other molten matter. Possibly, and if so, the phenomena is almost totally solved. I don’t think this is where it ends.

I believe that the heavy material has gathered together; but, the rotational speed of the Moon has been too slow to cause the tea leaf effect to take place. I think it is more likely that the heavy material has surrendered to the forces of centrifugal force and is clumped in mass on the interior wall of the proverbial Dark Side of the Moon. This added weight on that side would then cause the Moon to follow the limits of physical law as it pertains to centrifugal force. The far side of the Moon is weighted and therefore never shows itself to us.

I encourage your feedback. My e-mail address is arthurryan@comcast.net.

http://www.sciencedoubt.com

WHAT CAUSES TECTONIC PLATE STRESS

Over the years, I have often wondered what the underlying cause of earthquakes is. I fully understand that an earthquake is the result of a release of stress between tectonic plates. Two or more plates pressing others in any manner of ways and hung-up or caught on a type of blockage, then breaking free and releasing the stress. A ridge or rock formation acts as a block similar to the hammer on a gun’s trigger mechanism. Once the blockage is removed or fails, the hammer falls setting the process into motion. If a rock formation breaks, the stored energy is released. The result is an earthquake. This process is simple. However, what causes the stress in the plates in the first place?

How was the metaphorical hammer locked back in the first place to create a system to store up all of the energy?

In writing “Are We Worth Our Salt?” I came up with three closely related factors that work to build up the energy. All of these contribute to the process that enables the movement of tectonic plates described in the chapter “Continental Drift – Pangaea in Reverse”, a subject that should keep Geologists busy for years. These factors are all primarily caused by the friction and resistance created by the Earth’s rotation on its axis.

Granted all three of these factors were not discussed in the book. This was due to a lack of need to address them to lead the reader to main point of tectonic plate movement as it related to a pole shift. The main topic was that certain parameters were needed to enable continental drift. Parameters that only permitted slow gradual movement that would not answer anomalies identified in the fossil record. This discussion was to show that the Earth’s crust is not hard-bound attachment to its core and was merely floating on the magma similar to boats tied together on a lake. Like the boats, the plates will shift back and forth to the limits of their ropes and will bob up and down next to each other, yet they will not drift away from each other.

Enough on continental drift, let’s get back to the stress builders. Like I said above there are three factors that are closely related and are all the result of the Earth’s rotation. Here they are, in no particular order because they are all appear to be equal in their resulting stress creation.

First, the Earth is really a ball rotating within a ball with a substance that is basically liquid (magma) in between. This ball within a ball example is important with regard to the amount of friction producing surface area ratios. Imagine the area differences when comparing the equatorial regions with the polar regions. There is a considerably larger amount of contact area at the equator. This will create vastly more friction than that which would be made at the poles. Scientists look at the odd flow patterns of the sun during its rotation and see that its equator seems to rotate approximately three times faster than its polar regions. Another way to look at it, is the poles lag behind. The core’s influence at the equator is greater than that of the poles due to the difference in contact area with the gaseous/liquid matter at the surface. This same principle will also be present on Earth and is just less noticeable due to the solid nature of the planet’s surface at the poles. The hammer begins to lock back or the rubber band is tightening - Stress builds.

Second is the simple influence of centrifugal force. A physical law that comes into play when the ball in the ball scenario is again looked at. Imagine now that the center ball representing the Earth’s core is rotating faster than the outer ball that simulates the crust. Scientists have determined that the Earth’s core is rotating approximately 1100 mph faster than the crust/surface. This is the reason for our weather moving generally from west to east – but that is a subject for another day. With the influences of friction building from contact area outlined above being applied to centrifugal force causing the heavier areas to be influenced to move towards the equator, you find that the plates are trying to move both east and towards the equator. Which is evidence that equatorial regions/plates will not and can not move into polar regions by themselves. This easterly/ equatorial movement is the cause for the equatorial bulge that the Earth has. A bulge that is around 13 miles greater than if the planet is measured from pole to pole. More stress applied!

Third is the relatively uneven surface of the Earth’s crust that comes in contact with the magma. The magma is the result of melting metals and rock when immense pressure is applied. The melting point varies based on the material that is liquefying, therefore the amount of material over the top needed to create the needed pressure changes. In essence, if you turned the crust upside down, there would be mountain ranges there also. Let’s say that 20 miles (example only) of weight producing material is needed to achieve magma, that would mean that (in theory) where we see a mountain range, there would be a valley beneath in contact with the liquid. This would create a pocket of resistance that would trap the east flowing magma current resulting in a push on the crust. Yet again, a stress builder!!

With all of this pushing in a eastward direction and the physical law of centrifugal force in play there can be little doubt that the tectonic plates are under tremendous stress. The hammer locks back and the rubber band is stretched. That is until the block falls and the band breaks. Earthquakes are a reality we have come to expect and live with. Now you know why they happen. Cause and Effect.

http://www.sciencedoubt.com

NORTHERN PASSAGE VIDEO

Click the title of this posting to view a video shot by a news crew traveling with the Canadian Coast Guard as they transit through the now open Northern Passage. For those of you that have read the book "Are We Worth Our Salt?", your first question maybe: Why is it melting? This can be answered by the fact that as the salt content of the seawater descreases, its ability to hold thermo energy (heat) also decreases. Therefore, the warm water traveling from the equatorial regions is unable to hold its heat and transfers it to the ice causing the melting. This compounds our natural desalination process that is taking place. While this is important, I wish to draw your attention to the appearance of the ocean floor. It is a flat, off-white surface that is probably a deposit of salt; that was predicted in the book.

http://www.sciencedoubt.com

The Changing Speed of Light

In his book, “Faster than the Speed of Light”, Joao Magueijo claims that, at one time, the speed of light was much faster than it is currently. This theoretical physicist postulated that, at and/or shortly after the Big Bang, the speed of light was unimaginably faster than today. This scientific heresy was conceived to explain the complex mysteries of the origin of the universe. Magueijo should be applauded for challenging widely accepted theories and even stepping out on a limb to say that Albert Einstein may have been wrong.

This physicist does provide a compelling argument at great risk to his career. His theory provides a plausible answer to some of the early universe-forming problems. Yet, his theory creates new anomalies as it is deals with others. First and foremost is – “What causes the speed of light to later slow down?”

At the very beginning, in the relatively immediate time following the Big Bang, it is easy to imagine a light speed that could have been much faster. However, in this birthing phase of the universe, it is doubtful that objects could have coalesced in space and developed enough gravitational strength to later slow the speed of light. And, if these neophyte bodies did possess this great influential strength, what happened to that strength?

Another issue that would need to be looked at is, if gravity was not the influence on light speed in this early universe, what was?

So, we don’t have the answer to these questions concerning the early phase of our universe, therefore we need to look at the speed of light and those things that influence it now. Note: I am not saying that Joao Magueijo is wrong about the speed of light in the early years of our universe. I am saying that if the speed was much faster then and slowed – then it should be still slowing now. Interesting thought!

From the point of view of a simple, mechanical-minded person – Cause and Effect reigns supreme over every theory. For every phenomenon (effect) there was something that influenced it (cause). Often the effect will become the cause of yet another effect. Thus, whenever an event is described, you must address its cause. Then you must look into the effects that will result from that event. This must be repeated until a end-product has materialized. The end-product in this writing is the speed of light and universe that we can see and test now. Failure to do this will result in a rejection of the basic theory.

Now, at this point, you may be thinking that this is the end of this posting. Take a poke at Joao Magueijo, like most all of his peers, and then run. No way! I happen to agree with him that the speed of light is variable. I, however, am not at risk for a loss of my livelihood. I can state, like I believe Magueijo wanted to, that the speed of light has and still can be changed. There you go – said it. The speed of light is not a constant. Here is why I have come to this conclusion:

1. We can see the moon! This very basic truth is only possible because the light has impacted the surface of the moon and reflected back towards us. For this to happen, the light has to slow to zero at the point of impact. Otherwise we would be unable to see the moon. Any forward momentum would result in the light passing through. A stealth moon is not realistic with our current scientific knowledge or technology, so before the light could reflect off of the surface of the moon and return to an extremely high rate of velocity, it had to come to a stop.

2. Water can eventually prevent light from reaching extreme depths. Defusion or stoppage due to passage through or contact with matter is the cause of this. Many of you will immediately state that this doesn’t count. The water is not in a vacuum. True, but I am using this as an example of outer space that is supposedly a vacuum (future topic). Outer space is filled with debris and gasses that would act just like the matter in water. This earthly example is just to draw a comparison for light interacting with matter.

3. Having addressed space debris and gasses, I now draw your attention to the posting on this blog titled “Redshift – Hubble could have been wrong”. The David Effect described there also influences the speed of light. After all, ultraviolet and infrared light move at different wavelengths and thereby cover different distances during any given time. This is the basis for measuring red or blue shift to determine travelling direction or distance of stars and galaxies.

4. Light’s interaction with black holes is very interesting. Theoretically, a black hole has gravity so strong that not even light can escape it. After, a star enters the event horizon of a black hole its light bends back into the hole. The light fails to achieve escape velocity due to the immense strength of gravity in the black hole. This is much like throwing a ball into the air here on Earth. The ball rises while it still has upward velocity then it stops. However, that is not the end of the process. The ball then begins to gain downward velocity due to the gravity. Given enough space before impacting the Earth the ball could achieve speeds in excess of that which it had on the way up. The ball could reach a speed described as Terminal Velocity. It would then be safe to imagine (I don’t like the word: Assume) that same effect would be found with regard to light falling into the black hole. This could also be extended to light emitted from a star that has not yet passed through the event horizon. Light emitted from a star in the direction of the black hole would then be accelerated. A speed of light in excess of the constant is achieved.

5. The last example I will discuss is that of light bending around a large gravitational body, such as our sun. Imagine, if you will, the lift characteristics of an aircraft wing. Wind is divided at the leading edge of the wing. Wind passing over the wing covers more surface area than the wind passing under the wing. For the separated elements to remain in the same relative space together, the wind taking the long route has to move at a faster rate than the wind that travels the shorter route. This is how lift occurs. I am not trying to say that light has lift (maybe it does have some sort of influence on the body). I am saying that in order for side by side light particles/rays to pass around this type of body and rejoin each other on the other side. The two light particles/rays would have to travel at different speeds except when they are evenly split from alignment dead center on the sun.

With the above (hopefully clearly) addressed, the theory of variable speed of light becomes realistic. These examples are elementary, yet provide for the strong probability that the speed of light is not a constant regardless of the presence of a vacuum or not. While some many continue to argue against it, they would have to do it at the risk of saying Einstein was wrong in his theory of general relativity. His theory is the support for the influence of gravity on light after all. So, does that mean e=mc2 is wrong?

I don’t think so, at this time, because the amount of energy released by matter may be affected by the localized speed of light. I will have to think about this for later. I will just close this posting by stating that Einstein spent his final days of life working to find the answers to the doubts he had in his own theories. He thought he could be wrong; so, why shouldn’t we.

http://www.sciencedoubt.com

REDSHIFT - Hubble Could Have Been Wrong!

As you look at the morning sunrise, you sometimes notice the glow shines with red light. This is the subject of a saying for mariners that goes like this. "Red sky at night, sailor take delight. Red sky in the morning, sailor take warning." This is advice concerning the forcoming weather that draws attention to material in the sky that is defusing the blue light, suggesting that foul weather is on the way. It is a form of redshift that is observable with regard to a light emitting object that is relatively close to earth. How it works and its implications follow - read on.

This posting is written with the intent that you try the experiment outlined for yourself. You are more than welcome to just read the entry and accept the findings. However, you may find enjoyment in observing the process for yourself. Seeing is believing.


Materials Required: A ten gallon (or larger), rectangular fish tank, a sheet of white paper, one functioning flashlight, some scotch tape, and some white milk.
Setup: Fill the fish tank with tap water to within 2 or 3 inches from the top. Tape the sheet of white paper to the outside of one small side of the fish tank.
Execution 1: Turn the flashlight on and point it at the end with the paper attached from the other end. The light should be passing through the tap water and reflecting off of the paper.
Observation 1: The reflected light will be shining white. No surprise.
Execution 2: While continuing to shine the light as described above, begin adding small amounts of milk to the water. Continue until a visible change is apparant in the light reflected off the paper.
Observation 2: The reflected light from the sheet of paper will now be red. The visible light has changed from white to red.
Explanation: The white light at the start of the experiment is a display of all of the visible light. While not easily discerned, this light includes blue light. The combination of the blue and red light has given a visual impression of white light. Thus, it (the white light) contains both ultraviolet and infrared light, both of which have different wave lengths. After adding milk into the liquid, you difused (redirected) the ultraviolet light away from the reflection point on the paper. Thereby, less ultraviolet light is included in the reflected light.
Background: I was quasi watching (more listening to) a show on a cable network where a Jr. High School Science Fair was being featured. In this fair, a young lady (student) had submitted this experiment to show what happens to light when the blue light is difused. Her entry, if memory serves me correctly, earned her a third place award in the Science Fair. I wish I could remember her name because she deserves to recieve some credit here. If you can help identify her, please let me know.
Major Scientific Implication: While this was missed by the judges at the Science Fair, I did not fail to identify the larger implication of this simple experiment. What was really proven by practical application, was that Hubble has misinterpreted his observations of light coming from stars and galaxies in the Universe. Hubble viewed the cosmos looking to see red and blue shift in an attempt to prove that the Universe is expanding. He did, in fact, find that most of the Light Emitting Bodies (LEB's) were displaying a redshift from our perspective. Because most of these LEB's were showing redshift, he assumed that they were moving away from us here on Earth. The more redshift that LEB's displayed indicated to him that they were moving faster away from us faster than those that displayed less redshift. This was later interpreted by others to also indicate a farther distance from Earth. Conversely, those LEB's, that were few in number comparatively, that showing blueshift were either closer to or closing with us. This blueshift theory, I am in agreement with. Hubble went looking for evidence to support a preconceived notion, and therefore, failed to contemplate any other possibility for his observations. Thanks to the fish tank experiment, we can, with practical experimentation, speculate that all LEB's in space are likely to display redshift due to all sorts of debris and gas out there. A true redshift measurement of LEB's movement relative to Earth would have to take into consideration the amounts of debris/gas in between. While those LEB's displaying blueshift are most probably moving closer to us, those displaying redshift are likely to be indiscernible, at this time, with regard to movement or distance. We need a system to measure the amount of debris/gas located between the measured objects. Therefore, redshift LEB's could be at vast distances, moving away or closer, or staying relatively stationary. Our current science cannot tell.
Additional Observational Support: Scientists observing the heavens for Gamma Ray Bursts are using the redshift of heated debris and gasses to measure the distance to supernovas, hypernovas, blackholes, or any other object currently considered to be gamma ray emitters. Gamma rays can not be visibly recorded or seen by us. So the heating of nearby debris and gasses by the rays and, the subsequent, measuring of redshift from these objects is used by scientists currently to guess at the distance between us and the gamma ray emitters. However, debris and gasses are the very items that would cause ultraviolet light difusion (redshift) between any bodies. The vast distances between us and any other body would contain incalculable amounts of space debris and gasses. Redshift should be displayed almost everywhere!!
Other Scientific Implications: This phenomena has affects on other areas of scientific measurement. Some of those are: Age of the Universe, Spacial Distance, Light Speed, Expanding Universe, Collapsing Universe, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Star Type/Size, Star Birth/Death, Black Hole Measurements, and all manner of Big Bang Measurements. This just names a few.

More on this Redshift Effect, to be called from here on "The David Effect" is forthcoming in future postings. The term "The David Effect" is hereby claimed under copyright and trademark laws.

http://www.sciencedoubt.com

Target Topics

Any number of topics will be addressed in this blog. If it is a science topic/subject, it will probably be covered. Nothing is safe! If a doubt can be found, something will be said about it. If a alternate theory/idea comes to mind, it will be included. On subjects that are forwarded to this site, every effort will be made to examine it and comment accordingly. Hope you enjoy it.

http://www.sciencedoubt.com

What Are They Trying To Say?

The Doomsday Clock is set periodically to display how close humanity is to its destruction. The basis for its setting has numerous items included; but, it was mainly set by the threat of nuclear war. Many changes have been made to the hands' position throughout its life. However; what is most interesting is the position of the globe in the background. Why is a large chunk of Europe at the top in what would be the North Pole? How did North America end up along the equator? Are we not being told something really important? Is a crust shift a future reality that we should be looking at? Find out more about this type of event by reading "Path of the Poles" by Charles H. Hapgood, "Cataclysms of the Earth" by Hugh Auchinloss Brown, and "HAB Theory" (fiction) by Allan W. Eckert. For an in depth look at the mechanics that could make this event transpire, I recommend "Are We Worth Our Salt?" by Arthur Ryan. This is not a new idea. Albert Einstein gave the theory a positive endorsement. Governments have published reports on this subject dating back to the early 1950's and some are currently preparing for something catastrophic. Is this what they are trying to say?

http://www.sciencedoubt.com

Global Climate Change

For those of you that are tired of hearing that we are killing this planet, here is a new book you should read. It is "Are We Worth Our Salt?" by Arthur Ryan. It is a quick, easy to read look at Earth Changes, Ocean Desalination, Tectonic Plate Movement, and various other topics. It is written to describe, from a mechanical process point of view, that which occurs all around us. Visit http://stores.lulu.com/arthurryan to purchase the book or for a quick review, do a title search on google books.

http://www.sciencedoubt.com