(This week's winner in the Contributor Posts column is this intriguing article and blog by Ms. K.M:)
This year is busy in the science department of the Nefarium, as an interesting article was published by the Institute of Physics in the UK. The article:
DIFFERENT ORIGINS OR DIFFERENT EVOLUTIONS? DECODING THE SPECTRAL DIVERSITY AMONG C-TYPE ASTEROIDS was published in January and is now coming to our attention.
It discusses issues that directly relate to the enigmatic question of Ceres’ origin and the origin of the asteroid belt.
One of the first facts about Ceres is its actual composition. I held earlier that Ceres was about 50% water. Spectroscopy, the analysis of light representing the chemical structures that are reflecting that light, reveals that Ceres is coated with a scant two micron layer of surface dust from the asteroid belt itself. The content of the object is mostly water. (>50%)
Astonishingly, the study points out that underneath this two micron layer, Ceres in significantly comprised of oceanic compounds. It states:
"The surface composition of Ceres appears to be dominated by (1) carbonates, (2) phyllosilicates (possibly ammoniated), and (3) enstatite. The presence of anhydrous material (enstatite) on a surface otherwise dominated by products of aqueous alteration (carbonates, phyllosilicates) was unexpected. (The Astronomical Journal, 153:72 (10pp), 2017 February)
OK, so let's unpack this. Carbonate refers to limestone. Limestone is most often the result of living systems. In other words, and country simple: sea shells falling to the ocean floor over millions of years. Phyllosilicates refers to compounds that have as their main structure that enigmatic competitor to carbon, Silicon. Phyllosilicates are found, according to Wikipedia:
“In geology and astronomy, the term silicate is used to denote types of rock that consist predominantly of silicate minerals. On Earth, a wide variety of silicate minerals occur in an even wider range of combinations as a result of the processes that form and re-work the crust. These processes include partial melting, crystallization, fractionation, metamorphism, weathering and diagenesis. Living things also contribute to the silicate cycle near the Earth's surface. A type of plankton known as diatoms construct their exoskeletons, known as tests, from silica. The tests of dead diatoms are a major constituent of deep ocean sediment.”
In other words, either it’s a big magma pool or the result of diatoms, in other words, living systems.
Now, let's talk about enstatite. Enstatite is created in magma and found in lava flows. As the authors point out, this is unexpected. What they mean is that if Ceres was an old thing from billions of years ago, they would not expect to find ALL THREE compounds existing together. Why? Because they are indicative of Earth-Like Conditions on Ceres, which because of its size is impossible. Only a much larger world, complete with a living ocean, and a hot magma center, could display such a combination.
In other words, we are talking about Tiamat, or Krypton. Ceres is the remains of the ocean of Tiamat.
Further (and this is speculative), the three bodies observed in the study, Ceres, Eugenias, and Hygia turn out a spectral analyses all very different from Ceres, indicating that more than one planetary sized object might be involved in the events leading to the development of the asteroid belt. The authors still hold that Ceres developed autologically outside of 10 astronomical units away from the sun. But they cannot prove it, and in my view they never will.
Occam's razor impels us to seek a simpler answer, albeit one with complex implications. That's Joseph's hypothesis as discussed in The Cosmic War.
The razor thin two micron cover, with an even higher water content than I previously discussed, means that the date of the Cosmic war could even be closer than 3.25MYA. If it took a few million years for Ceres to stabilize, and that event happened recently, less than one million years, then it would make sense that Ceres would have such a thin coat of dust over its water features.
Also, Joseph’s analysis of interferometry shows that a shake-apart standing wave must be geared to the composition of the object to be interfered with. It makes sense that much of Tiamat’s great ocean, five times the size of Earth’s, would not fly apart as the rocky molten core of the planet did. Water as a fluid has a different viscosity and density and therefore a different interference formula and it apparently stayed together after the planet shook apart and exploded.
That the Planetoid Ceres is the remnant of a larger world and Ceres once hosted complex life is now effectively proven.
That there is now evidence that not only was Tiamat itself blown to bits, but that other satellite's of Ceres or "other bodies nearby" may have been blown up along with it. Think of Dr. Tom Van Flandern's "Missing Planets" assertion that Mars was locked in orbit around Tiamat, was hit in the face by it, which wobbled in its orbit until it flipped southward, explaining why the south is so much higher in altitude. With Hoagland’s work on Mars, the Moon, and Pluto behind us, the work of Van Flandern giving us a date of 3.25 million years ago, and Joseph giving us the political and physical analysis of the war, combined with this recent scientific evidence means that all the pieces are now falling into place. We know what, when, and likely how. What remains, is who?
I’m just wondering if our genetic cousins are still “out there” with advanced tech, or degraded and isolated, with their own questions about being alone, with their own Enrico Fermi’s wondering why it is so quiet.
The Astronomical Journal, 153:72 (10pp), 2017 February