Liquids and gasses, in the presence of gravity, separate out into layers based on molecular weight. Solids present some complexity to the picture. Though they can act a bit like slow-motion liquids in some cases. Generally speaking you expect the solids to arrange themselves getting more dense as you go further down. But there is a lack of mobility which complicates matters. The general principle, with some exceptions, is that gravity determines the direction of the density of materials. If you know which way is up and which way is down the more dense materials will tend to be in the direction of DOWN.
Now complicating this analysis, when it comes to gasses in the atmosphere; there is a layer where gasses commonly found in air are said to be well-mixed. Interestingly this layer is very hard to find out about in detail, thanks to the global warming fraud. Lately they have said that this “homosphere” reaches to about 70 kilometres above sea level. Thats not always been the story. But you cannot get them to analyse for you how the heavier gasses drop off gradually with each few kilometres. They are deliberately hiding the data. So for example, if you ask a global warming fraudster about the drop-off in CO2 parts per million, for each kilometre in altitude you will gain, all you will get is Jews and lock-step leftists looking for a Gotcha moment ….. “Ho ho you must be just about to die through Argon gas suffocation …. Tee hee hee.” All that money spent on the global warming racket has lead to counter-productive results and hiding of the data.
There can be little doubt that the concentration of the heavier gasses systematically reduces as the altitude goes up. If this were not the case we would have that data. Take that into consideration if you are thinking about using ice core data for your past CO2 measurements. Since the ice itself is formed from packed snow, and the snow develops high in the troposphere. Which is why political considerations have lead to a knowledge deficit when it comes to finding out about how the homospheres constituent parts morph in line with altitude.
Above the homosphere they are calling it the heterosphere. The heterosphere is where the gasses line up in accordance to their molecular weight. At least every gas that is still a gas at the appropriate temperatures, and those gasses lighter than well-mixed air. In this regards water vapour isn’t part of the heterosphere. Water vapour is much lighter than air, but at the temperatures of the upper troposphere, all water vapour must form into liquid or solid prior to getting to the altitudes we are talking about. Methane is lighter than well-mixed air. But ultra-violet light will react with methane in order to turn this CH4 into CO2 and H2O …. prior to this methane accumulating its own layer in the heterosphere.
My claim had been that the final gas layers, in these segregated layers of the heterosphere, were not helium than hydrogen. I said that above the layer of hydrogen there ought to be a proton layer, and above that an electron layer. Just lately I found for the first time they are claiming there to be a “protonosphere.” Maybe this claim has been around for a long time but I missed it when I was studying the global warming racket between 2005-2008. Probably the first Van Allen belt will be top-heavy in protons and the second may likely be top-heavy in electrons. Though it can be hard to get information on this sort of thing. And that is not exactly how they are describing and defining this protonosphere.
Lets note in passing the baffling stupidity of mainstream science. Who are always looking at stars and claiming that the universe is mostly hydrogen, and in plasma form at that. The dumb bastards are looking at the outer layers of the stars that they can see and simply assuming that these outer ‘lifting gasses’ are representative of the massive object as a whole. Stupidity of that level is not about a general lack of brain power. It proves the controlled nature of the academy.
Up And Down
We need to know which way is up and which way is down. Which seems like a frivolous idea but its not, because it tells us how materials will be layered. Materials will be layered in the direction as described above once we know which way is up.
Which Way Is Up? Not such a bad song. Not such a bad band. Damn fine-looking women. Not such a stupid question.
The region in the deep earth where the direction of UP and DOWN reverses can be determined by way of locating where the seismic waves bend one way and then the other. The same principle as how light bends when it travels between air and water. I believe the mainstream sees the veering of the seismic waves and yet they refuse to suffer the implications.
Lighter materials are upward and more dense materials are downward, subject to a bunch of caveats already discussed, but more importantly; subject to the determination of which way is up and which way is down.
Under Jan’s own analysis its going too far to call our earth “Hollow” … There are a lot of crazies involved in this ‘hollow earth’ business but Jan’s analysis is solid.
The best analysis in the video is around about the 20-30 minute region. This is where Jan applies the principles of seismology in a logical fashion and shows that the mainstream is evading some possibilities. The rest of the video is mainly talking about how Jan has explored all angles. But the seismic investigation is the really important stuff.
Most other “hollow earth” people are cranks. Brookes Agnew is both impressive and particularly full of shit. I judge him to be an agent of some sort. But Jan’s analysis ought to be taken very seriously. I think Jan Lamprecht’s analysis is path-breaking.
So supposing there is an empty region at the centre of the earth. And this region has a radius of about 760 miles. If you are dead centre of this empty void, every direction from where you are is down and you are weightless. So supposing you journeyed DOWN to the centre of the earth. When you got there you would find yourself at the highest point. But well BEFORE you got to that point, you will have noticed that UP and DOWN had reversed.
At the centre of the earth, gravitational forces are the same in all directions. So for practical purposes there is no gravity. The centre of the earth is the point within the earth, where all gravity cancels. You are at the highest point you can be at, at the centre of the earth. For you every direction is DOWN. Down is in the direction of the earths surface. Isn’t that kind of bizzare? And isn’t it funny that you had to hear this from me? The level of control exercised over science is pretty much total.
The dispute comes at the inner core level. The mainstream thinks this is a solid inner core of iron and nickel. They simply do not have the logic or the data to be making bogus claims of this nature. Since the claim of a nickel and iron core is so ‘out there’, arbitrary, crazy, and unbacked …….. we must therefore assume that this monolithic claim is hiding something the oligarchy don’t want us to know. This is a stupid claim. This claim is in violation of any understanding of epistemology. You cannot keep secrets by way of secrecy. Secrets are kept by way of bogus information injected into the situation to hide the truth.
The dispute comes at the inner core level. The mainstream thinks this is a solid inner core of iron and nickel. But an analysis of gravity tells us that this inner core is where the liquid runs out and the gasses start. The gasses start where the liquid ends. This is the inner atmosphere. The inner atmosphere gets increasingly rarified, until there is purest space at the very centre.
For us right now DOWN is in the direction of the earths centre. Now supposing you are standing on solid ground, at the edge of the void at the centre of the earth? Now UP is towards the earth centre. Down is towards the earths surface. And there is positive gravity, because the material beneath your feet is able to pull on you to a greater degree than all the material at the other end of that void. Well what has happened here? You see there comes a point as you are travelling to the centre of the earth where UP and DOWN are reversed. With the reversal of UP and DOWN comes the reversal of the density of materials. For this reason we know that there is indeed a hollow region at the centre of the earth. We have the data from the seismic waves. Where the mainstream says we have a solid inner core, thats where the hollow part starts as I think I have proven. Lets not have second thoughts about this since the seismic data is there. Plus the seismic data shows where the density of materials reverses since going from higher to lower density affects the way the seismic waves bend.
Where the mainstream has matters correct is the location of where the liquid outer core begins and ends.
Seismic data very decisively tells us where the liquid begins and ends, as represented here by the yellow region. The rest of the model is the usual arbitrary bullshit.
Kids are or used to be marked down for making the claim that “heat rises.” But actually this is perfectly fine shorthand and its certainly valid for liquids and gasses. Where liquids and gasses are concerned, the tendency for most of the thermal energy is to go UP rather than DOWN. So indirectly or directly gravity determines the direction of where most of any extra thermal energy being produced, is likely to flow too.
That the photosphere of our sun is almost 6000 degrees Celsius, has in no way prevented our sun from retaining its gigantic oceans. There are two reasons for this. 1. The refrigeration effect of the phase change of water. One of the most miraculous and puzzling effects in all of science. (You would think this effect was pure magic if you didn’t know better) and 2 …. “Heat rises.” Which means the thermal energy being produced, chiefly between the corona and the photosphere, has to fight every inch to make its way down to the water. To be sure it gets there. Or we wouldn’t have coronal mass ejections and other such violent behaviour. But its tough work, every joule and every inch.
Now see how the suns inner ocean drives the rotation of the suns outer atmosphere in accordance with latitude? The diagram above shows this very clearly. The rotation pattern is due to the inner ocean spinning faster than the outer atmosphere, and the inner ocean being flatter (more oblate) then the sun appears to be at the photosphere. Total proof of an inner ocean since no other solution is possible. This inner, and more oblate oceanic sun, also explains the alleged anomalies in the rotation of Mercury around the sun. Doesn’t really matter what any Jew wants to say about it. Not everything the Jew tells you is the truth.
So in order to suss out where the thermal energy will tend to migrate to you need to know which way is up. As we have seen, when you are at the centre of the earth, everywhere is down. The thermal energy wants to migrate to where you are. Or at least until the gasses run out. Supposing you are on earth? If there is a bonfire burning on a platform above your head, where you are not shielded from the platform itself, you could get very hot. But if you are above the fire, thats where most, but not all, of the thermal energy is headed. This will become important later when we discover that the Sun never lost its oceans. Of course should we want to pull this apart to a greater degree we would split up thermal energy migration into convection, conduction and radiation. But still the generalisation that “heat rises” is good enough in many situations.
Layered atmosphere of the sun.
The same system will apply to the sun as it does to the heterosphere above the earth. On the sun the top of the hydrogen layer is almost 6000 degrees Celsius and the temperatures will drop below that. But any element or molecule that is a gas at the appropriate temperature will have its own layer where it is predominant, in accordance to its molecular weight. Below the hydrogen plasma layer is the hydrogen gas layer. Below that the helium layer and so forth. The temperature drop-off is not known exactly. Although my understanding is that when you can see through the photosphere, because of the sun spots, the sun spots are maybe 1400 degrees cooler than the photosphere. Maybe someone else could be able to work out which gasses were included in the layers beneath the photosphere. But its a tough gig because you need to know what molecule will be a gas at the right temperature and pressure so you would need to know that temperature and pressure.
I don’t know how the aether converts pure random flux into useable energy.
I cannot tell you HOW. I can only tell you WHERE.
Pristine Energy Until Proven Otherwise.
The aether takes pure random flux and transmutes this into energy. Don’t ask me how this is done. If you want to estimate when this capacity first evolved, try a trillion to the power of a trillion years ago as your first starting point. I don’t know how this is done and am not going to presume to delve down into that level of miniaturisation. But once we know that neither energy nor matter is conserved, it follows that energy and matter must be generated somewhere and somehow. After confessing to the reality that I don’t know how its done, in the case of pristine energy, I can at least tell you WHERE this is happening. We have already dealt with one place where pristine energy is being created. This is because we now know that the orbits of two or more major gravitational bodies are energy positive. So pristine energy comes into the universe via orbits. Orbits of two or more bodies as large as our moon or larger.
Charge Separation Indirectly Due To Gravity.
Here we have the other, or the second cause of pristine energy injected into the universe. Once you get that heterospheric pattern you wind up getting the layers; Helium, hydrogen, protons, electrons. Right at the very edge of that lineup you will have charge separation. Once you get charge separation you will have continuous charge buildup. Since the aether is not a very good conductor you then get resistance. With resistance you get the generation of thermal energy. Both capacitance buildup and the consequent heat buildup are examples of new energy injected into the universe. If it isn’t coming from there you would have to ask where it is coming from.
Notice how this version of how things happen explains what we see. What is the mainstream answer to why we have a corona where the temperature gets as high as 2 million degrees and falls in temperature towards the photosphere? A real ‘dog ate my homework story.’ Now what is going on with the photosphere? Well you see gasses don’t conduct electricity very well. But ions do. So the photosphere represents that interaction between the proton layer and the hydrogen layer. The electrical energy is now circulating around and around on the hydrogen layer trying to penetrate into the sun, but only being able to do so gradually. The result is a kind of eternal ball lightning.
The earth has an inner sun. Tiny, but very powerful.
The earths inner sun blazes away, primarily giving off gamma ray light. Gamma rays in a vacuum produces new matter in the form of pair production (an electron and a positron). These pristine particle rain down on all the elements arranged in gaseous bands, since the temperature is hot enough to make every element a gas. The voltage difference, the high electrical pressure, makes fusion in this situation easy and painless. The heavier elements are in the lower gaseous bands. The high pressures involved can force materials downwards (ie towards the earths surface, and towards the pinch point where density is greatest and where up and down reverse.) Heavier elements are forced downward by lighter elements and so are given a kind of ‘head start.’ So where up and down are reversed there is still the possibility of some heavier elements making it to the earths crust, being driven by the lighter ones, often still as gasses or as molten liquids. Were it not a topsy turvy situation like this, all heavy stuff would be deep and lighter stuff would be shallow.
This electrical energy is spread over the entire photosphere of the sun. What do you imagine would happen if the same sort of layering and charge separation could lead to a more focused electrical energy? You would get a dense plasma focus of some sort. The most intense electrical pressure and heat leading to a tiny gamma ray sun. Very exciting stuff right? For that we want to go back to the centre of the earth. We will see that there is a spontaneous generation of a tiny gamma ray sun. Not made of hardly anything at all. Simply a ball permanent gamma ray lightning.
So starting from where the outer liquid core ends we get an “atmosphere” of sorts but it will be many types of elements and compounds in gas form because of the high heat. Eventually they will separate into distinct layers that may approximate the periodic table. But just as in the upper layers of the earth and the sun, the layers will eventually wind up being helium, then hydrogen, then protons then electrons then pure space.
Each layer will trace out the outline of increasingly small spheres. When we get to the proton and electron separation, that will amount to the same sort of charge separation as between the corona and the photosphere. But now the electrical energy will be hyper-focused. Thats why the end result will be a tiny gamma ray sun. As opposed to on the sun, where the result of the charge separation is instead permanent lightning producing light of a sort that approximates “black body” radiation at less than 6000 degrees celsius. The inner sun is much more focused, very small, and much if not most of the light will be gamma radiation.
Gamma radiation through a vacuum is what leads to pair production; the only known type of new matter creation.
Now consider what this mechanism means for the growth of planets? You would need to be quite a large planet to get this process going to any great degree. Once this mechanism starts going it will keep going until the planet becomes a star, then becomes a bigger star, and it won’t stop until the body explodes for some reason or other.
But it will mean that there is a point where the growth of the planet is at its highest proportionately. We must be close to that place now. At 18-22mm radius increase per year, thats really strong growth. Contrast this to the sun.
The sun will be creating vastly more new matter every year than we are. But not so on a proportionate basis. There has to be some sort of diminishing returns to this inner sun new matter creation process. We have some verification of this. NASA says that the orbit of the earth and the sun is increasing in diameter 15cm per year. Only 15cm per year? As we have seen elsewhere orbits of large bodies tend to grow. We have to assume that the orbits grow faster than the bodies themselves. So this implies that the suns growth is quite modest on a proportional level compared to the earths.
NASA only really lets out interesting information early on and by accident.
They have said that measured from the centre of the sun, to the centre of the earth, our orbit is growing 15cm per year. Of course they have no explanation for this and they probably wished they never let this information slip.
Others who investigated these matters have assumed exponential growth in bodies. Because its very clear that the earth hasn’t been growing at anything like this rapid pace for most of its history. But this was never likely to be the case that growth would always be exponential. Because in physics we are talking about mechanisms. And so you expect these mechanisms to hit a sweet spot where its working very well. Then get less and less effective proportionately as the body grows. If I’m right large stars are very ancient. Much older than what the mainstream is saying is the age of the universe.
One more thing to consider. The very centre of the earth will have much higher temperatures than what the mainstream suggests. But since that area is largely a void, since up and down are reversed, and since heat rises, that way the thermal energy is quite well contained.
Maxwell has tracked with great precision the historical growth rate of the earth. As you can see it looks like the planets growth rate is exponential. Though the graph looks to be going straight up thats only because of comparisons with the very feeble growth rates of long ago. Since right now the growth is 22mm in radius per year.
The amount of millimetres radius increase per year will continue to increase. But the PROPORTIONAL yearly increase may be pretty close to its peak already. And an understanding of the inner earth, as I have described in this thread, should tell you why this would be the case.
With regards to the model described in the thread. I want you all to visualise it since it helps explain very easily the record of the earths growth. You see the inner matter creation of the earth only 70 million years ago was weak. Very feeble. And there is a lot of room for improvement. Think of the layers of gasses in the inner core and liquids in the outer core …. gasses and liquids chiefly due to extreme heat. Temperatures far higher than we perceive from the surface since that UP and Down have been reversed to the heat is contained much better than the mainstream could imagine.
Now the gravity where the inner core is quite a bit weaker than the gravity we experience here at the surface. So the charge separation, indirectly due to gravity …. Its got to be a situation wherein this feature has a great deal of “room for improvement” don’t you think?
So you have all these layers capturing much of the periodic table …. but of course with only a 760 mile radius, and feeble gravity, we would not expect such clear differentiation. Then when we get up to the last five layers ….. helium, hydrogen, protons, electrons, pure space …… Well with so little gravity and so little space to work with …. the differentiation between the hydrogen, proton, and electrons …… These aren’t going to be cleanly distinct layers in any absolutist sense. But as the planets and stars get bigger, the gravity and the inner voids get larger, then the charge separation will get more distinct, so that the matter creation will become more efficient.
So its very easy to understand why the moons expansion is so feeble. And why the earths expansion was also very feeble not so long ago.
Here is the figures for how the surface area of earth has changed over time. Now note that the surface of the earth increased only 0.31 percent in that ten million years between 170 and 180 million years ago. That is really close to fuck all. Barely fucking nothing. The inner void must have been very small. The indirect charge separation due to gravity must have been very feeble. The last five layers (helium, hydrogen, protons, electrons, space) must have been differentiated only as a slight matter of degree.
Contrast this to how the surface area has increased 5.52 per cent in the last ten million years. Well the last five layers won’t be as distinct and awesome as they could be. The gravity starting from the inner core/outer core boundary is still pretty feeble. But nonetheless we have begun to hit a sweet spot; a pretty functional new matter creation setup, with a powerful yet tiny inner sun blazing away in the gamma … So new matter is getting created apace. So clearly there is much room for improvement but proportionately it will begin to level out and then later start dropping. It won’t continue to be exponential as Maxlow has suggested.
We must always remember that in physics we are talking about quirky proposed MECHANISMS. Not Jew Voodoo principles. So we don’t want to make the mistake of looking at the data and being too quick to suggest that the PRINCIPLE we are divining is a principle of EXPONENTIAL GROWTH. Once we drill down to the MECHANISM, as I have done in this thread, we find that the growth will continue to increase in ABSOLUTE terms, but that this growth will “soon” reach a peak in proportional terms, when the situation is such, that the internal new matter creation “factory” gets as efficient as its ever going to get.
I hope you can visualise, in your minds eye, by way of my model, why this has to be the case.
I think I heard Paul Laviolette suggest that Sagittarius A* was creating the vast majority of new matter in the galaxy. I am not sure it was he who said that. But can you see that by way of my analysis this is unlikely to be the case? The new matter creation factory is likely to be proportionately more efficient in fairly modest sized stars. Actually if we are really talking about PROPORTIONATE efficiency it will be in gas giants, or indeed in rocky planets not so much bigger than our own. In other words the proportionate efficiency will be in very large planets. So I cannot see Sagittarius A* as being the great new matter creation venue. Since the layer differentiation can only get so good. The charge separation will only get so distinct. At some point the inner sun efficiency in new matter creation will reach diminishing returns.