MASSIVE NEW ROCKY PLANET FOUND: KEPLER 10c
For followers of Dr. Tom Van Flandern's Exploded Planet Hypothesis, here's an interesting story that was shared by Mr. S.D., and which I pass on:
Kepler space telescope spies a ‘Mega-Earth’
Now why is this significant? For one thing, in Dr. Van Flandern's exposition of the Exploded Planet Hypothesis, the size of the now-missing planet was much larger than the mass of the Earth, and it was a solid planet. The trouble with his exposition, at the time, was the fact that such planets, as the article makes clear, was not thought to be possible:
"The theorists didn’t see this coming. The orthodoxy was that, beyond about 10 Earth masses, a planet would hold on to so much hydrogen gas that it would become like Jupiter or Saturn. Kepler-10c suggests that plus-size planets can stay rocky, with clearly defined surfaces, rather than becoming gaseous and bloated."
The discovery of such a massive solid planetary body removes one persistent difficulty with Van Flandern's theory, and with scenarios (such as the present author's "cosmic war" hypothesis) based upon it. To be sure, other difficulties remain, many of them having to do with the difficulties of chronology of trying to reconcile ancient texts with various modern scientific theories of this type.
But there's another implication of this article for those interested in the possibilities of comparing ancient texts and mythological lore, with scientific theories. That implication is suggested here in the article:
"Gravity at the surface is nearly three times that of Earth. If there were creatures somehow bounding around, they would probably be rather squat. The planet is 2.3 times the diameter of Earth but is much denser, particularly toward the core." (Emphasis added)
I have remarked about this aspect of the implications of Van Flandern's theory of a massive solid planet which was once in the asteroid belt's orbit, and which may have been home to intelligent life. There are two possibilities, perhaps, One of them, suggested by the article, is that in such a high gravity, creatures would be squat (and probably massively boned). The implication is that on planets with less gravity than the Earth, and home to intelligent hominoid-type life, might have creatures of much larger or taller stature than those of Earth: giants. And that seems to reconcile with those ancient stories of giants. One need only think of those old Mesopotamian depictions of kings as being of large stature compared to the smaller "servants" attending them. Academia tends to interpret such depictions in simply a metaphorical or symbolic sense, while within the alternative research community they tend to be interpreted as reality. The second possibility is the converse: that in such a high-gravity environment, creatures might have evolved with a much larger and more massive skeletal structure.
In any case, the discovery of Kepler-10c, as the article implies, means that planetary science's theoretical models might have to be revised, and it appears to indicate, at least for the moment, that one of the difficulties of Van Flandern's version of the 19th century's Exploded Planet Hypothesis has been removed.
See you on the flip side...
Help the Community Grow
Please understand a donation is a gift and does not confer membership or license to audiobooks. To become a paid member, visit member registration.
There are many schools of thought…
One says the heart cannot pump blood any higher than 17 feet, hence the height of the giraffe. Therefore, when the dinosaurs roamed the planet, the earth must have been about 40-50% its present size. Indeed if you shrink the earth accordingly, you find that all the landmasses fit together perfectly into one large landmass with shallow seas. This is the expanding earth theory. If you study this theory it seems just as plausible as any other, maybe even more so than tectonic plate movement. Especially if you examine the age of the rock around the deep trenches in the oceans.
This would indicate that the gods came from a planet smaller than ours, possibly Mars. Mars may have been destroyed by a large asteroid which bored a hole extremely deep into the planet (search “eye of Mars”). A strike of this size would have wiped everything of the face of the planet for the most part.
If this civilization had achieved space travel just prior to this event, the obvious outcome would have been the colonization of Earth to preserve their species. They would have brought as many native species as possible from their doomed planet to this one (an ark). They would have had advance warning of this event and time to prepare. It would not be possible to move everyone, most likely, therefore, I doubt that the general population would have been told of this event.
If something like this occurred, The size of these survivors would have been along the lines of the mythology we have. There would have been a very small population to begin with and life would have been hard, they could only bring a limited amount of technology with them.
If there were hominids on the earth, they would have certainly attempted to use them and possibly even upgrade them. One could alter this scenario into any number of possibilities. Without any accurate records available we will never know.
Do such records exist? If they do, they will most likely be in the vaults of the Vatican or other such archives collected over very long periods of time, bits and pieces gathered here and there, and studied over equally long periods of time with interpretations of these events evolving as each bit is analyzed and added to the knowledge base.
Like some, I don’t necessarily buy into the ET from across the Galaxy, space brother, paradigm. I believe it’s entirely possible that civilizations have arisen and fallen many times over the course of this planets long life. Some would have gotten quite far up the tech tree albeit not necessarily along the same paths we have taken. War may have destroyed some, natural disasters others, and it appears to be somewhat cyclic.
What would remain of our civilization? Not much, really, given the long periods of time involved. We have not built using gigantic stones; about the only thing that could survive such time periods. What would be left would be sealed in all the underground bases very few of which would actually survive such cataclysms.
The question is: Are our leadership faced with such a scenario? If so, they may be perusing similar actions.
Or they are grabbing what they can and leaving the rest of us behind. If so, I wish them well…
Maybe……..our perception of what gravity is, how it propagates and operates is completely erroneous.
Also, how do we know that ET isn’t the mental aberration, or physic parasite, described in Nag Hammadi Gnostic text, where these non-organic entities are known as Archons, the head of which is Yaldabaoth, the Old Testament: Yahweh.
See also John Lash’s publication: Not in His Image.
Wasn’t there also a higher oxygen and denser atmosphere earlier in earth’s history? This too could contribute to larger, different life. Remember from Michael Cremo’s Forbidden Archaeology that actual giant bones (12′ – 30′ tall) were found on this planet. I am making the assumption that they all didn’t just “migrate” over at once.
The Cosmic War is without doubt the pinnacle of Joseph’ early books, and even today when I go over some parts of it, it still astounds me for several reasons. As he states in the start of the book, it is a highly speculative theory, BUT, when you consider what the texts are saying, then the theory becomes just about the craziest scenario one can imagine. The one thing I got from the book is the follow on, in other words, if the theory is true, then our whole history is exposed for what it is, and then the evolution theory is exposed for the absolute rubbish it really is. The debunkers would have a field day with this ancient war in space, BUT, as Joseph says, planets just don’t blow up!!
So dear readers, once upon a time, and NOT in a galaxy far away, there were two parts of one family that went to war for possession of some tablets that had all the power of the universe, and they are still conducting that war today, albeit, on Earth.
I always find discussions of creature size versus gravity to be a bit specious. We don’t have one size of creature on Earth, and it is instructive to consider the ranges of sizes instead of just “size.”
For example, there are birds that vary from an inch or so in size to taller than humans. What is the “correct” size for a bird in our gravity well?
Likewise, we have mammals from the size of very tiny mice to quite large elephants on land, and used to have more very large mammoths (and dinosaurs, supposedly).
The example of whales to dolphins is equallly instructive – over a 40 to 1 ratio in some cases (blue whale to harbor porpise). We have large ranges in creatues sizes even in the same family in the same environment.
Did elephants and giraffes “evolve” in our gravity well? If gravity is such a determining factor, how does that explain the radical differences in animals (and plants) we see all around us?
Why wouldn’t there be different sized humans? Apply the size ratio of mouse to elephant to humans . . . even a 5 to one “normal” range could give us 30-40 foot humans. 12-20 feet should be no surprise at all.
The ratio of dolphin to blue whale applied to humans could give us 160 foot humans (40 to 1, with a 4 foot minimum). (Yes, I understand that water changes things, but even mouse to elephant gives us greate than 40 to 1 on land under the same gravity, etc.)
So maybe they can only grow to 60 feet and be built as stocky as an elephant . . . .
Most of the arguments against really large humans come from studying humans with health malfunctions which make them weak and sickly as well as tall. Hardly a good data set. There are healthy populations less than 4 feet tall, and over 7 feet tall – nearly a 2 to 1 ratio.
The argument of size versus gravity has long been used to debunk the idea of giants, and I find it very suspect, even in light of the little bit we actually do understand about biology.
This is like engineers saying that bumble bees are aerodynamically unsound and shouldn’t be able to fly. Ignoring the stupid arrogance of humans, the bees fly quite happily anyway.
The bone and muscle tone loss we experience in space is blamed on gravity. What if it is caused by something else – something we don’t yet understand (or the space folks won’t tell us)?
I prefer to reserve judgement on whether a planet is inhabited or not based on whether I find life there or not. I will certainly not tell them they are not “correctly” sized for their gravity well . . . .(that would be “glactically incorrect”).
“creatures might have evolved with a much larger and more massive skeletal structure”- well no s**t- start with Genesis and the idea (paraphrase) “giants roamed the earth” back then, and if I recall correctly, it states in Samuel II “giants had six digits on each appendage”- well, why not?- if my read sources are correct our biological genome is capable of producing 7 digits on each appendage; so, why not?; is that concept too much to deal with within our fabricated minds?-
as for the subject of giants: just start with (and it’s just a start) go to Richard A. Dewhurst’s “The Giants Who Ruled America”-
it’s just a start-
Nibu anyone how about Superman home world Krypton the idea of super earths is nearly a century old. The scientist still think they know every thing and every time their ignorance is shown to the rest of us. A good writer of hard science fiction has a better scientific background than they do.