| |
| The Next Ice Age |  Why should we worry about the next Ice Age? Most people might think it unimportant to concern themselves with the detail. But nothing could be farther from the truth. The next ice age will bring with it such calamity, it really doesn't bear thinking about. Temperatures will plummet to anywhere near -200c, oceans will freeze, the planet plunge in to perpetual darkness - and the species, along with all other species on planet earth will wither and die.
And it might just happen a damn sight sooner than you think! When I rewrote special relativity I could hardly believe my eyes. I changed the emission and transmission point of light, and found a way of removing time from the universe.
What I did was place light as a point of force between two bodies of mass (stars) and let it move two directions simultaneous. It was then I managed to lock in a prediction the rise and fall or the fall and rise of starlight on a secondary equation to a Doppler. I understood, if the volume of mass changed its position, the theory would be proved correct.
But what I didn't quite understand at the time, was just how serious the implications of this astounding postulate would be for humanity and our planet. The idea was about to become abundantly clear though.
With the prediction built, I had a sense of satisfaction about it all. Maybe even a smug smile. That quickly changed when it dawned on me, that if starlight relocates its position due to the fluctuating levels of mass, what effect would it have for the Hubble constant? (Galaxies are seen expanding) or what we might term (receding).
The prospect was a sobering one to say the least, for I understood, that galaxies are not particularly receding, but we are losing our volume of mass. And that means are star, the sun, is dramatically cooling down. Alarmed, I decided to investigate the theory further and see if the two, the regression of starlight and the rewrite of special relativity might not be liked. The resulting hypothesis knocked me sideways. For the first time ever, I had come up with a plausible explanation as to why ice age phemomona occur.
The fact ice age happened has never been in dispute among academics, what has been in dispute, is what actually causes the event: some speculate on volcanic activity throwing hot ash in to the atmosphere, others large forest fires create so much soot, it blocks out the sun and forces temperatures to plummet. I've always considered both of these events to be too insignificant to instigate an ice age.
For years now, science has clung to the Hubble constant, and widely assumed our universe to be expanding. But one question they've never really been able to answer is, why is it an accelerated process? Why are galaxies receding at a much higher rate than they were previously? To date, there hasn't be a sensible answer, and then this. If as I say, we change where light first originates, ie, say it originates between two stars, rather than coming from either one, then the level of mass must continuously change, and thus light changes with it. That pin-prick of light we see in the night sky, will not be the star, but the star will be that distance away again.
The idea first stuck me as to the relation between an impending iceage and the rewrite of special relativity when I noticed an abscene of stars from space missions. The next time you see photographs of astronauts in space, look carefully at the background image and you'll see nothing but an empty black canvas. Science says this is due to the mineshaft theory light narrows because of the huge force of gravity created by our planet, earth. However, I think there is a contradiction. I think science wrong, profoundly wrong. I believe the lack of stars apparent in the background is not due to a large force of gravity, but a weak force of gravity. The astronaut fails to see stars because gravity is too weak. The fact the astronaut is falling with a principle of equivalence (weightlessness) should tell us that. Unless the astronaut's eyes experience a different level of gravity to his body, I think it safe to make the claim.
Therefore, we must accept, if starlight vanishes through a lack of gravity, then gravity itself produces the starlight in the first place. This supports the original rewrite of special relativity, and the fact starlight is only apparent here on earth, and not from space. It naturally follows therefore, that the postulate on the regression of galaxies made by Hubble is also wrong: our universe is not expanding, but our evaluation of light within it is!
Yet the truly amazing outcome of this theory is, if starlight is racing away from us, and the rate of acceleration is increasing, then the next iceage could be with us in a matter of years, not thousands of years or even hundreds of years. The next Iceage could hit anytime: next year, the year after, the year after that. And the implications are incredible. Planet earth will lose anywhere up to 99% of all living species, snow drifts will be thousands of feet high, food, medical treatment, scools - hospitals and transport will be non-existent, and everyone will be forced to eek out an impoverished existence. Cannibalism will happen on a massive scale as there will be no other food. People will resort to tribal factions as life slowly disappears in the snowy wastelands of what was once a glorious planet.
I sincerely hope it's not too late for us, although I get the feeling it is. This theory still is not being taken seriously, even though it can be proved simply be pointing a telescope at the sky. Maybe you might like to help promote it. Use this opinon link and voice your view with an email. You never know, you might also help save yourself.
Iceage 1
Iceage 2
Iceage 3
|
|
| |
|
» 
