Infinite Relativity
The chaotic regularization of infinite sets as whole number units
by Jason Robert Beaubier
MAIN TOPIC: Predicting Asteroid Impacts: Explaining Meteor Showers, Impacts, and Earth Resonant NEOs as Recursionary Derivatives Debris of the Early Earth-Moon Formation Process
SUBTOPICS: Subsequent new thermodynamic explanations for stellar, planetary, and lunar formation and orbits, plate tectonics, the lunar mares, recursionary impacts, axial precession, pole-shifts, Earth’s catastrophic and climatic cycles, the natural logarithmic growth of infinite time sets, and understanding the folding of time.
This is an actual testable thesis of cosmology based on Infinite Relativity and includes many predictions and new theories.
DEFINITIONS of DERIVATIVES
A mathematical expression representing the (growth) rate of change of a function with respect to an independent variable (initial mass, or population)
— i.e. the growth rate of the solar system with respect to its initial mass
Originating from, based on, or influenced by:
— i.e. planets originating from, based on, or influenced by stars
— i.e. moons originating from, based on, or influenced by planets
An arrangement or instrument (such as a solar system) whose value (masses and angular momentums) derives from and is dependent on the value of an underlying asset (the Sun):
— i.e. solar systems moving in harmonies because they are derivatives
Having a value (mass) deriving from an underlying variable asset (mass/am of System)
— i.e. the mass/charge/am of star/planetary/moon is a derivative its primary source object’s mass/charge/am
PART I
CELESTIAL OBJECTS as DERIVATIVES
This model presents a fractal cosmology of infinite time and space expansion that is independent of Accretion Models, the Big Bang or the Giant Impact Hypothesis.
It instead postulates an infinitely expanding universe driven the limiting function of infinite sets and the natural logarithm, also known as the natural rate of decay.
The primary driving mechanism proposed for celestial object formation in this theory is “surface mass ejections”, as recently first observed in the star Betelgeuse, which is believed to be on the verge of a Supernova. The author predicts that Betelgeuse is instead on the verge of birthing a new star, not dying.
This model of celestial body formation proposes that the cyclical nova events of stars are actually a birthing, nurturing, and system balancing process; and further, that nova events act as the primary driving force in the formation of all new celestial objects. The intensity of these events diminishes over time as the system achieves stability but continue at smaller amplitudes.
The author maintains that surface mass ejections are a function of birth and growth, not death, and will lead to the bifurcation of Betelgeuse into two objects, one of which will become its new satellite. The author further maintains that many binaries we see in the universe are in a process of nurturing or lovemaking before separation and expansion, not collision and destruction.
This notion runs directly contrary to the accepted mainstream model, but it does not need to overturn all the science to do it. This half-mistaken perception is explained as a function of the natural logarithm in this paper. The natural logarithm is used to calculate both continuous expansion and the natural rate of decay. Hence, it can mistakenly appear as either growth or contraction, depending on assumptions, ontology, and mathematical framework.
In this new model, it is proposed that the binaries that do actually merge are recursions of a smaller body to its source, rather than the outcome of chance and lucky capture. For the sake of consistency, the model simply assumes that more than half of the binaries we see must be in relationships which will lead to the creation of new derivative satellites and continued expansion. This would explain the mystery of why we so see many binaries across the universe.
Simply put, between a binary pair of celestial objects like stars, a surface mass ejection from one star (or planet or moon) becomes a new satellite of the body that ejected it, and this creates leads to greater distance (or space) between the two stars. The surface mass ejection then become a new moon or planet, and the ejector become a mother. The other body of the initial pair becomes the system’s paternal unit.
FORMATION of the MOON
In 2020, this idea was proposed by the author as the prima cause of the formation of the Moon and the dark spots on the Moon known as lunar mares, or maria.
Additionally, evidence was found by the author that this process does indeed lead to predictable recursionary impacts of asteroids to the Earth and Moon; is intertwined with the cause of axial precession; and is foundational in Earth’s cyclical catastrophes.
The present paper relies on the author’s new model of gravity, which reduces orbital dynamics to a function of thermodynamics via the Lorenz equations. This has allowed the author new insights into the planetary formation process, the subsequent cause of planetary rearrangements as a logistic map of bifurcations; the evolution of planetary orbits as a Rayleigh numbers; and the underlying cause of precession and toroidal orbits.
In this new model, magnetism and electricity are reflected as functions of viscosity, pressure, and density in the thermodynamics of the Lorenz equations, and orbital distances are included as functions of diameter ratios and thermodynamics over time.
The focus of this paper is to explain the implications of this theory. The theory itself will only briefly be covered because it requires a far lengthier explanation. This is simply meant as a conceptual model for common understanding and further discussion.
INFINTE RELATIVITY
What must be mentioned is the basis for the theory of Infinite Relativity.
In the Infinite Relativity paradigm, we can view any whole number as 100% = 1 (as well as 99.99%). We then apply that idea to view one whole unit of infinity, or infinite set, as 100% (at a specified time). In other words, any infinite set is said to represent 100%.
To make this work, the decimal place must be calculated to as far as the 10th digit. This will naturally include 99.99% of an infinite set. This is primarily applied to convergent infinite sets, whose equations’ iterations get smaller over time.
Equally, any whole unit is also understood as 100%, and thus, also a convergent “infinite set”. Since any whole unit can be divided infinitely, it contains an infinity, even though it is bound unto a singular unit, be that a planet, person, or moon.
NUMBER (e), PHI, NATURAL LOG and INFINITE RELATIVITY
My intention is to avoid the deeper mathematical discussion in this paper, but they must be illustrated a bit. Feel free to skip this section if it is not of interest.
If we raise the number (e) to the square of Ramanujan summation for the infinite series, (-1/12), it produces 1.006968616, which I call the Beaubier Impact Number, since I cannot find it referenced anywhere as an important number.
The number (e) ~ 2.718 and
The exponent ((-1/12)²) = 1/144, or = (0.083333)², which = (0.00694444)
So, roughly, 2.718^(0.0069444) = 1.006968616
And, e^((-1/12)²) equals 1.006968616.
This Beaubier Impact Number (BIN) is very close to 100% + the natural log of 2 as a percentage (0.69314%), which would equal 1.0069314.
Approached another way, the fraction 5/8 is often used to give a rough equivalence for PHI (0.625 vs. 0.618).
However, the answer to 5.555555555 / 8 = (0.6944444444).
That (0.6944444) is 100x of (0.00694444), which is Ramanujan sum for the infinite series squared. This illustrates the relationship between fractals, PHI, the natural log, 100% and 1 in this model, and how the information presents itself holographically.
It also indicates the dimensionality aspect of the Fibonacci sequence.
The fraction 5/8 is often used to give a rough equivalence for PHI (0.625 vs. 0.618) and dividing 8/5 is commonly used to denote the rough equivalent to PHI², (1.6 vs. 1.618). The numbers 5 and 8 are from the Fibonacci sequence, and they are the first two numbers after the 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, opening sequence.
Thus, 5 and 8 are the first numbers in the sequence with gaps between them.
With space between them.
In other words, orbital space between them.
Regardless of its relative length, any whole time period is also known as one cycle, or one orbital revolution, when time is viewed in terms of planetary orbits.
Finally, by dividing (0.6968616) / (0.69314) ~ 1.0054. If we subtract them, we also get a small percentage less than 1% (0.0037).
Thus, tentatively, a paradigm with compounding derivatives of time periods begins to emerge. It requires more math to explain fully, but we can gather some general observations.
When calculating irrational numbers and infinities, holographic dimensional information can be hidden and obscured depending on where we decide to round the decimal. Since we normally only round to a few places and notate with base 10 powers, this information is generally obscured. The true wisdom of this paradigm is found in the lower decimal places.
Such rough equivalency is generally frowned upon in math and particle-based physics. However, in a framework that bridges General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics it is likely necessary for our present understanding until a new ontological framework is more widely accepted.
Obviously, the sum of an infinite series does not equal (-1/12), nor could it ever be 100%, since infinites are infinite. These are mathematical conventions for notation and solving complex equations. At a certain point, in order to understand the multitude of Infinities, we must accept some kind of ontological regularization of infinite sets. The struggle to even introduce the idea of infinities is at the root of the entire ontological problem of religion, math, and physics.
FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS
The derivative mass of the new bodies does seem to correlate to the lower harmonic of 12, in Earth’s case at least. We see this in the Moon’s mass being 1.2% of Earth’s, and in Ceres, whose mass is 1.2% of the Moon. Thus, Ceres is here postulated as a derivative of Earth’s Moon. If we add the Moon and Ceres mass, plus all the other debris postulated in this paper, we’d likely arrive back at close to 102% of the Earth’s current mass.
The fraction that produces 1.2% is 1/81, and extended = 0.01234568. This is quite interesting considering the somewhat mystical role 7 plays in number theory, and because it is the close harmonic of .718. That would be the remainder if we subtracted 2 from the number (e), (2.718).
Furthermore, Earth’s surface area is 1/83 of Saturn’s surface area, and while Earth is much denser, their gravities are roughly the same on their surfaces, indicating a direct relationship of Earth as a derivative of Saturn.
This explanation is pithy, and many physicists and mathematicians will no doubt pick it apart. As they should, since these are not my specialties. I welcome their clarifications.
The main stumbling block I perceive to an embrace of Infinity is the argument by many particle physicists that Infinity simply does not “exist”. It is argued as a matter of faith, despite all their models embedding infinities throughout their mathematics, and the debate has been ongoing at least since the discovery of calculus.
Because Infinites obviously “exists” as much as anything else in math, the argument is qualitative, ontological and a metaphysical one. It is widely taken for granted that whole numbers “exist”, despite arguments to the contrary, and the arguments of quantum physics. At one point in history, even the number zero was heresy. If a researcher focuses on what separates one thing from another, limitations is what they will see, and find. The observer effect is quite real, after all.
I am certain of this because my specialty is metaphysics, ontology, epistemology, and phenomenology. Thus, what is clear to me, and to them, is that a new Quantum ontology and framework must emerge to bridge Quantum physics and General Relativity. Many researchers are involved with this process who can explain the math better than me.
For one example, Strominger and Cotler’s arguments for a Unitarity 2.0 theory is very similar to what I am describing here. Regardless, until the ontological questions are more widely settled, we won’t likely perceive a coherent paradigm. Others ideas of a similar view seem to be causal set theory, the E8 lattice, and the idea of QI proposed by Mike McCollough.
This is just one small step. In this “Infinite Relativity” paradigm, it is proposed that using this new way of viewing “whole units” as infinite sets may clear things up quite easily to compliment the math already worked out by others. In such a paradigm, the universe becomes an interconnected fractal, emanating from chaos theory rather than a chaotic, yet ambiguously coherent collection of objects. In simpler terms, the self-similarity we see everywhere is the result of fractal emanations, not convenient chance.
If energy is truly never destroyed, then energy and mass “exist” on an infinite timeline. While any finite units are not Infinite in the proper sense, they do contain this aspect of infinity. For those stuck in a Big Bang cosmology, you can view this as simply taking the cyclical Big Bang theory to a more logical extension.
CONCLUSION
Since “whole units” are functions of infinity and continuous growth, they are delineated over time by bifurcations at periodic interval and harmonics of Feigenbaum’s constant. Some infinite sets diverge, and some converge, becoming recursions to source. The timing and locations of many asteroid impacts on Earth supports the hypothesis that they are remnant pieces of lunar formation debris which returned as recursions to their zero point source at harmonics of Feigenbaum’s constant.
To briefly illustrate this, the Natural Logarithm of 100 (4.605) equates to the age of the Solar as a whole, multiplied by 1 billion. Using that function to correlate dates for events in our solar system using the accepted science, we find Chicxulub impact of 66.04 million years ago correlates to the natural log of 1.0682718.
That number is between harmonics of the BIN and the natural rate of decay slightly before it, and harmonics of Feigenbaum’s Constant and another BIN harmonic slightly after. The number itself ends in a harmonic of the number (e), 2.718.
This paper provides an outline of this process and only briefly touches on the substantial physical evidence for this mathematical paradigm.
PART II
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK of DERIVATIVE CELESTIAL OBJECTS
The basic thesis of celestial objects as derivatives is as follows:
Smaller mass bodies are born from larger mass bodies and expand to harmonically proportionate diameters by changing their densities and exchanging heat and energy with their parent or primary. Like children, only a small, dense celestial body can be birthed and escape the gravity of a larger one.
Likewise, everything grows to a proportional limit in due time.
Planet masses are derivatives of their Star’s mass;
Moon masses are derivatives of their Planet’s mass;
Comet masses are derivatives from their Moon’s mass;
Asteroids and Meteorite masses are derivatives from their Comet’s mass.
As surface mass ejections, each may be considered as bifurcations, births, or simply derivatives. Furthermore, the process of accretion is simply the most nascent plasma dominated form of this process. Each term is helpful to elucidate the nature of the relationships in slightly different ways.
The main difference here is that the “accretion bubble” forms in direct contact or within its source and is fed via an electromagnetic plasma-filled umbilical cord as function of its axial tilt and close orbit. This addresses a major underlying problem of accretion theory, namely, what causes the plasma bubble to rotate and condense in the first place?
Thus, rather than the pure chaos of a Big Bang, Accretion, and Planetary collisions, this theory presents a great fractal of derivative emanations oscillating between chaotic births, deaths, and attractor relationships. The author maintains that this is the reason we see logarithmic scaling everywhere in the universe and why they are defined by harmonics of the number (e) at all scales.
The snapshot we see of logarithmic scaling of mass in the universe ignores the fact that the system has always been growing, and it will continue to grow. The expansion is a non-linear process, and this paper presents that process as a mechanism of balancing systems during this growth. The key to unlock the process is exploring the rational powers of (e) with decimal places, rather than only drawing conclusions based on whole number exponents of (e).
NATURAL LOGARITHMIC TIMELINE, INFINITE SETS, & HUBBLE’s CONSTANT
All manifestation is a function of continuous compounding and the natural rate of decay known as the Natural Logarithm and defined by the limit of the number (e).
The number (e) is also used in math equations to define infinite sets and is fundamental to all calculus and math above it, including math dealing with infinities.
Hence, the author maintain that the Universe exists on an infinite timeline and thus, the Universe is itself Infinite. It is precisely because it is continuously compounding itself and yet has an infinity of limited (convergent) sets, (aka finite systems, aka whole units) within it that are all constantly expanding and contracting, that it fit the proper definition of Infinity.
This is because Infinity necessitates an infinity of infinities. A Catholic priest proposed the Big Bang and mathematicians agreed with him many years ago. That occurred mainly because computers and the chaos theory equations needed to understand infinity was not available yet.
At the time, the Catholics feared for their paradigm of the all-powerful, singular, creator God, and the mathematicians feared for their sanity and reputations. Neither group’s authority is truly threatened anymore, and so, the time has come to emerge from the old paradigm. The inertia of reputation does still linger, however, so the task has fallen to someone who is a Philosopher of both Religion and Science, not a tenured expert.
LIVING SYSTEMS as INFINITE BEINGS
This idea of whole units regularized as convergent infinite sets is made practical using Chaos theory thermodynamics in this paradigm.
But to explain it simply, new living systems eternally emerge to replace dying ones, creating an infinity of infinities.
The formation of all celestial objects thus flows from the function of continuous growth compounding, which is also the natural rate of decay, and is articulated by the Natural Logarithm that defines the limits of all whole, growing things.
This is why Hubble’s Constant various readings converge around 69.8 km/s/Mpc, but vary depending on the system, with some readings reaching as high as 74 km/s/Mpc.
The natural log of 2 is 0.69314, and used to calculate continuous growth, but the law of 72 is used to calculate periodic growth.
A Natural Logarithmic Timeline universally applies to the limits of all growing systems, and as such, it is what defines the laws of thermodynamics, magnetism, electricity and gravity in our universe.
When the natural logarithmic function is used to model population growth, all that you need is the initial population, (aka mass), and the growth rate. One doesn’t need magnetism, electricity, gravity, or thermodynamics to predict the limits of population growth. However, all those things certainly underly the growth of all living systems.
As such, the Lorenz equations and Infinite Relativity serve as a Grand Unified Theory which has already been articulated in a myriad of ways mathematically.
The other force variables are reflected in the math that governs population growth, within the variables in the Lorenz equations. These can be replaced or converted to focus on any of the other forces. For example, electricity and magnetism have pressure and viscosity functions that can be converted to explain those phenomena via the Lorenz equations.
OUR CELESTIAL FAMILY
In a very real sense, children are simply derivatives of their parents.
With the focus of this paper being the creation of comets and their asteroid and meteor derivative children, the following outline should be helpful for a frame of reference:
· The Sun is the derivative child of a much larger star.
In any solar system:
· The star/sun is the parent of the planets.
· The planets are the parents of moons.
· The moons are the parents of comets and Earth Resonant NEOs
· The asteroids and meteors are the children of comets and NEOs.
· Asteroids and meteors are thus, the grandchildren of moons.
And to be clear, a pre-existing other planet is always vaguely present as a father figure interacting electromagnetically or thermodynamically with the mother object and child.
However, due to the parental planet being on its own orbit, the relationship between a maternal planet and its derivative moon is fundamentally more significant, while the paternal planet simply contributes energy and heat.
For clarification, this doesn’t mean to say that there aren’t any asteroids or debris in our solar system that have come from outside it. All systems fade into each other a bit, exchanging energy and materials. It is simply much less than commonly expected.
Total isolation is not the nature of the fractal universe. Everything is constantly moving together and apart at once. But reality exists in pockets and bubbles at dimensional intervals, as do all living systems exist in containers, birthed from seeds.
Equally, populations exist in communities and generally only a small proportion will travel abroad, and among those, even fewer we take up residence in a new land. However, if we examine history and community bifurcations, it is almost always a direct result of change in climate and local thermodynamic conditions.
WAVE-PARTICLE “DUALITY”
The wave-particle “duality’ of light should be understood phenomenologically as a dimensional and perspective issue, not an ontological dichotomy to be proven one way of the other.
Despite the non-dual truth that the quantum field manifests matter via constructive wave interference, the dualist atomistic level of reality as exists as well. They must co-exist, and neither could exist without the other.
I like to tell explain it with the phrase, “There is no non-duality without duality.”
Or, as the Buddha said, “Emptiness is Form. Form is Emptiness”.
BRIEF OVERVIEW OF TIME
Time is simply the measurement of a period of rotation. It is non-linear, and it can only be measured in relationship to a curved, rotating surface.
Time is also not curved because time has no inherent properties, just as space has no inherent properties, and space is simply a measurement of length, width and height.
Everything simply moves in cycles of oscillations (and circles when regularized), and we measure them as intervals.
Neither a point, nor a line, nor a circle exists except as a regularization. They are simply conventions designed to delineate whole units, or real numbers by ignoring everything’s infinite aspects.
The Derivative Process is a function of a time period. The limit of a convergent infinite set (exponential growth with a time period) is defined as the limit number (e), ~ 2.718.
This is slightly more than PHI³ ~ 2.618, also know as the the golden ratio².
CONSTRUCTIVE COMPRESSION & NON-DESTRUCTIVE EXPANSION
Thus, (e) is the time and place that the derivative emerges, just after the constructive compression wave interferometry of PHI³. The constructive compression increases the charge of the body and allows it to propel the “mass” difference into a “new time period” of its own. This new body then experiences “time” as periods of rotation.
In other words, the growth, and the limit of growth, create a new discrete unit of charge, which we have come to call photons, planets, moons, comets, asteroids, and children.
At first, their rotation and orbital periods are quick around their primary. After time, both slows down, and our ability to perceive the periodicity increases.
Thus, a child body or derivative expands time and space with its lifespan. The periodicity of a child’s rotations will be self-similar to that from which it emerges, creating holographic information, and the fractal quantum field structure we see everywhere.
The best analogy for celestial bodies in this paradigm is an oversimplified Hypersphere. The toroidal form represents magnetic viscosity and recursions, while the dorje shape represents electromagnetic expansion and pressure.
The circular emanations from one polar direction are like photons rings of “black holes” but at slower speeds and higher masses. In mathematics, that axis is known as the imaginary axis, though clearly, it would more properly be called the “creative axis”, or C-axis.
The following will illustrate how the constructive interference and non-destructive compression occurs at all scales of the material universe and why it usually occurs after PHI³ and at the number (e) on a natural logarithmic scale.
This will be primarily a descriptive analysis since the math of infinite sets and the author’s new number theory regularization concepts have been outlined elsewhere, and the insight regarding PHI owes much credit to others.
PLANETARY BIFURCATION, BIRTH, & DERIVATIVES
“A STORY OLDER THAN TIME”
The derivative occurs when a child planet, such as Jupiter, approaches another planet such as Saturn, or its primary star, too closely. At that point, heat and energy are exchanged while their magnetic fields mingle.
In the light version, we can view this process as similar to mating with a cousin of one’s tribe when it is another planet in one’s own system. In the dark version, can also be thought of as a return to origin, (or to the zero point of its timeline) when the paternal parent is the Sun, or Jupiter.
Most births occur when still young, so in many ways, the process of mass bifurcations that occurred does look like a ‘big bang” from our perspective. In reality, this is simply a perspective issue. The other 96% of the universe’s mass physicists that label “dark matter” is simply the larger universe from which ours emerged that we can’t see. Because 13.81 billion years is as far back as we can see, from our perspective, it looks like a point. In reality, this is function of this infinite set theory, and our universe is but a bubble emerging from another, much larger universe.
What we think of as multiples of 10 years are simply a function of continuous expansion. The non-linear relationship between irrational, rational, exponentials, and infinite sets creates number theory, not the other way around.
In other words, the universe’s accepted age, 13.81 billion years old is simply the natural logarithm of 1,000,000, the first seven-digit whole number. Just as the age of our Sun is 4.605 (bya), which is the natural log of 100, multiplied by 1 billion.
When traced back on a natural logarithmic timeline, the infinite sets clearly emerge using these two numbers as a starting point. In this new paradigm, our multiverse appears in fact to over 300 trillion years old, while the greater multiverse is actually, infinitely older.
THE BIRTH
The surface ejection of material, or birth, occurs primarily during the early tidal locking of a young planet in close proximity to its parent or primary star and while orientated to them with a nearly perpendicular axial tilt.
Children are always born from their parent’s south pole. The south pole generally faces toward grandparent before the grandchild’s birth. The birth could also occur with the paternal parent and the birth could be incestual. We shall stick to the wholesome version as much as possible here, but it’s easy to see how the other description fits the mythologies of earliest ancient gods incest.
BIRTHING HYPERSPHERES at NEW AMPLITUDES
To visualize the math behind this birth process, one can imagine a sphere (or quaternion hypersphere) rolling on a 2D sine wave. The point of conception and birth occurs where the south pole of the sphere’s axis of rotation crosses the x-axis. If that point was also on the y-axis at zero we might say it indicates an incestual parentage.
Either way, as the polar point crosses the x-axis, a derivative emerges into the negative lower part of the y axis, (or i-axis on the complex plane). That derivative then moves into harmonic flow with the original sine wave of the parent. And although similar, it would have a different amplitude, reflecting the paternal inputs.
The imaginary i-axis thus becomes the creative non-destructive compression axis.
In 3 dimensions, the derivative is born between the two, then reorientates the mother body’s axial tilt direction as well.
This produce derivatives as children, the basis of Infinite Relativity based on whole infinite sets, emanating new infinite sets.
In analogy, a parent, or an initial investment, or mass, remains whole. That means that the size of the parent is not diminished by the derivatives birth, bifurcation, or surface ejection. Its energy is generally diminished for a time, and its periodicity altered, and where it had expanded prior to birth it contracts, but it retains its general size and the property of “wholeness”.
In living beings, their hearts are always softened by a child’s birth and parents often experience a qualitative change, but their mass remains (mostly) the same.
However, as with the inflation created by increasing the money supply, the density of value decreases for the initial investment or celestial object as compounding continues.
HOW THE ENERGY/MASS/AM IS DIVIDED at the ZERO POINT
The following is an attempt to describe an oscillating differential equation. Every action described has a counter action that follows, and not all can be sequentially listed because they are non-linear. This is a general outline.
Both the impregnation and weaning that occurs as a result of this process are brief. They both result from the same perpendicular-like axial orientation, but each one is a distinct step in this process and must not be confused.
Prior to the birth of its own derivative (i.e. before a planet has a moon), the initial axial tilt of a planet towards its primary or parent (Sun) can become nearly perpendicular. This can occur at a much closer distances than was understood until recently. Scientists’ acceptance of this fact has only recently changed after finding that orientation among of exoplanet discoveries. See Kepler 10b for reference.
Furthermore, planetary re-arrangement has only recently become widely accepted, and many theories regarding its mechanism are still being debated, while the general public has very little awareness of it at all. It should be noted that few mathematicians or physicists have likely deeply considered the implications of these findings either, but those who do mostly agree it means needing to alter existing theories.
FOLDING TIME and “TIME TRAVEL”
This new possibility of perpendicular axial tilts is what allowed the Lorenz equations to work. The Quaternion (Hypersphere) of a celestial object’s axis of rotations can get to zero in this configuration by essentially folding dimensional time vectors.
In simpler terms, with a perpendicular axial tilt, the orbiting body can have a day, month and year period that are all same, or very close to the same.
As an orbiting body’s axial tilt moves to upright, (at the age of walking, for analogy), its magnetic field is still highly intertwined with its parent, and so, its axial tilt and magnetic field wobbles. The proportionality of the parent and its connection to the satellite determines the child’s internal thermodynamic dynamo stability and future periodicity, as well as the strength of its magnetic field. Conversely, the new satellite helps maintain the mother planet’s magnetic field and core dynamo.
It is well understood that every primary body’s rotation speed is co-dependent with the distance of its orbiting bodies. What is less well understood is why the distance doesn’t grow linearly. The nonlinear relationship is due to thermodynamics. Thus, it is periodic and cyclical, and directly tied to heat cycles. The obvious example is that life grows more during the warm half of the cycles (daytime and summer) while it contracts during the cold half of the cycles (nighttime and winter).
This non-linear, differential relationship of oscillations is why the Lorenz equations work to predict orbital and rotational axial tilts, periodicities, and their descent into chaos.
While clearly the forces of electricity and magnetism are involved as well, we can view any of the forces as primary in such a fractal lattice of interconnections. In essence, it is all governed by oscillations of contraction and expansion.
HYPERSPHERE GESTATION
Gestation is essentially the 1,1, at the beginning of the Fibonacci sequence.
However, this configuration of perpendicular axial tilt is unlikely to last for more than a year or two without leading to bifurcation and birth.
The 1:1 time period is simply the gestation period for a baby or moon, or the future childhood of the planet, with a revolution and day period that is the same. However, this should be understood as the coming from the perspective of the child who view itself as totally indistinguishable form its mother for its first year of life, not necessarily from the perspective of the parents.
This direct passing of the infinite torch of life also has echoes in the female child being born with all her eggs. That is a wonderful analogy to help understand infinity.
Any new child planet or moon is only likely to suckle on or near the surface of its parent’s body for a short time before reaching a more distance orbit, and its own periodicity. Any longer and the parent risks permanently destorting its magnetic field with its child’s, or never returning to its own periodicity. The child’s periodicity is thus, a derivative of its parent body, and grows quickly to proportionality to escape low orbit. Only after this does its growth slow.
In most cases, the child gains more independence each day that passes and as their orbit expands. However, the separation has distinct phases. At first, its orbit is wildly elongated and it basically crashes into it parent once a day. This is analogous to a child passing out or a throwing a tantrum.
Later, once it has gained some independence, the child’s orbital distance can grow rapidly or contract in spurts, depending on the parrent. The child can even potentially run away, only to be dragged back home by the authorities. That is analogous to the strange attractor phase of two bodies in Chaos Theory.
Thus, the Lorenz equations, Rayleigh numbers, and the natural logarithm together can be used to illustrate the patterns of life almost in their entirety.
This is how we can view the universe as a fractal and grounded in the Fibonacci sequence. Birth is how 1,1, leads to 2, 3.
1 becomes 2 as a bifurcation, and the derivative, or child, star, planet, moon, or comet, along the creative, or imaginary axis. And then there were 3.
The perpendicular axial tilt allows a satellite’s rotation speed to increase, and this allows it to get closer to its parent and collect extra charge/mass/AM/heat or financial support to have its child. This is constructive wave interference.
This subsequently causes its mass/charge/spin and diameter to increase at the satellite’s pole facing the primary. Both this increased spin and an increasing diameter work together to prevent the planet from colliding with its parent or partner, even while bouncing chaotically on its surface, and being turned inside out.
Conversely, the exchange of heat, energy and mass between two close planetary bodies prevents them from exploding into each other. The friction actual precludes one dissolving into the other as they would in a purely liquid medium or if the universe was simply “waves”, or if everything was made of solid particle and boundaries.
This is why relationships are always hard and require give and take to succeed, and why codependency is like passing the Roche limit. Very messy.
GESTATION & THE INFINITE FRACTAL of LIFE
The satellites perpendicular axial tilt and its close orbit to its primary creates a thermodynamic gradient in the satellite’s core temperature along its axis of rotation.
This internal temperature differential along the axis of the planet is inevitable due to the condition of constant daylight and intense heating on the closest pole to the primary, and the extreme coldness and darkness on the side, which is constantly facing away.
Internally, this creates a Hopf fibration that creates a bubble and a magnetic monopole in the child until it emerges at birth connected via an umbilical cord of plasma. This is how the Hopf vibration relates to the Mandlbrot Set.
On the surface, the hot dayside of the orbiting body becomes plasmafied and magmatic and this transfers energy to the satellites core. This is like a kind of love. Without this heat and closeness to its parent (or partner), a satellite will be unlikely to reproduce. Either in the living world, or at the planetary scale. Furthermore, it is the process of passing this heat to the child that likely determines the viability of the child’s own magnetic field strength.
Recent theories have indicated a fundamental role of orbiting bodies in maintaining their primary’s magnetic field, and this author fully endorses that idea to a new level with this paradigm of planetary birth.
Eventually, the heat gradient leads to stretching and elongation along the planet’s rotational axis and that leads to bifurcation. As stated above, this can be thought of as surface material ejected or a birth, but it occurs at the south pole of the planet in the direction of the primary or parent.
The question of whether the core of the parent is ejected to form the baby moon is a quasi-spiritual one in my opinion. In this paper the focus is surface mass ejections and a mitosis-like view of bifurcations for celestial objects.
The human life analogies are imperfect but relatively illustrative of the relationships.
The exact nature of the separation of celestial bodies will be debated for a long time to come, but the general paradigm can be outlined.
And thus, a baby moon emerges.
This may also involve the push and pull from the paternal planet circling behind the birthing planet, but it’s a small percentage of the time, and most give birth towards the direction of their own maternal parent.
The subsequent ejection of a mass/charge/am unit, or child, or derivative, occurs from the new parent towards the direction of its parent, the Sun, or its impregnator partner. The new parent thus employs the yo-yo despin technique to lessen its attraction to its primary by ejecting material from its surface to the sides, and push itself away.
This forestalls its collision with its parent source, or its partner.
And this keeps the system, and universe expanding.
Without an orbiting satellite, any object is unlikely to achieve rotational stability and will likely end up as recursionary debris to source eventually.
In the process, the derivative become a satellite body which changes the new parent’s axial orientation towards parallel with the grand-parent; i.e., the after birth, the new parent enters a normal upright rotation that is governed by a larger system body and its leadings its child to do so as well.
This often involves entering an opposite magnetic polar orientation for its mother.
The paternal parent just goes back to doing whatever it was doing before.
While “the times they are a changing”, in a primitive state of relationships with a lack of warmth, and where survival is less certain, these traditional roles reign supreme.
One parent must nurture children, while the other goes to gain supplies to heat the fire and feed the other two. Hopefully, I have not offended anyone with this analogy.
QUICK NOTE
Many people are unaware that all moons that are large enough to maintain isostatic equilibrium (spherical form) are tidally locked to their planet, not just our Moon. This is also likely true for planets without large Moons, as new exoplanets findings indicate.
As far as the 4th variable for Drake equation and the search for advanced extraterrestrial life, the author proposes that only planets with relatively large moon are suitable for advanced life to develop, due to the climate stabilizing effects a moon has on a planet’s axis of rotation over the long term.
QUICK EVOLUTION of OUR SOALR SYSTEM
This will be a greatly oversimplified story of our solar system to get us to the Earth and Moon formation process.
First, the Sun divided into two.
Next, the smaller of those two bodies, a giant protoplanet, bifurcates into two other protoplanets, and then again leading to the formation of the 4 gas giants.
Then, the gas giants give birth to the rocky planets as moons while they were still in a much closer orbit to the Sun. The close proximity makes possible the perpendicular, polar facing, and tidally locked orbits for planets to form moons. The process is chaotic, but predictable in this paradigm, and it does not require gas cloud accretion or many planetesimals colliding and accreting.
The underlying theory is that only the planets that give birth to moons are then able to move into parallel axial tilts for several interrelated thermodynamic reasons.
Firstly, the baby moon(s) add angular momentum to the primary moon/planet’s system; secondly, a poleshift away from the primary occurs after the birth in order to stabilize the mother’s body and to maintain its isostatic equilibrium; thirdly, the poleshift acts as a mechanism to cool the wounded surface, heal, and redistribute the internal heat and regain stable periodicity. Finally, the diameter of the new moon adds to the planet-moon system diameter as a whole, giving it more “gravity” as a whole. This makes it more inter-dependent with the forces of the system as a whole, and thus more supported in a planetary orbit and stabilized by the larger objects around it.
Finally, all these derivatives create constructive interference for the propagation of growing orbits of time and space, and destructive interference via the return of smaller materials to source. If the system was perfectly stable it would collapse. It simply has to grow to survive. However, in order to grow, it also has to have recursions.
This is why time, and space, are infinite. There are always new derivatives beyond the event horizon, even though all things return as recursions to their source eventually.
The only way it all makes sense is with an awareness of Infinity, infinite sets, and a paradigm for regularizing whole units as derivative infinite sets.
And with a birth model of the new bodies emerging from the previous generation.
EARTH’S PARENTS, SATURN and JUPITER
Thus, the author maintains that Earth is a child moon of Saturn and Jupiter, and that the Earth was originally birthed as one of its Saturn’s moons. Following the model, in order to escape Saturn, the Earth had to birth its own derivative child, our Moon.
That process occured due to Jupiter’s near approaches to Saturn.
Saturn was probably born from Jupiter, during one of Jupiter’s close approaches to the Sun. Saturn, as a satellite moon of Jupiter, prevented Jupiter and the Sun from colliding.
Such a paradigm explains why Saturn’s orbit was initially closer to the Sun than Jupiter’s, as many mainstream scientists generally accept. Saturn was born between them, and from them.
It seems unlikely that any of the small rocky planets were born from Jupiter due to its larger mass making it more difficult to escape its gravity. Rather it is more likely that Jupiter stole them from the other gas giants, as Grek mythology has claimed he was wont to do.
Thus, the creation of moons likely occurred between gas giants to create all the other bodies in our solar system, and that is the reason why Saturn has larger moons than Jupiter.
The author will later tie our solar system family’s story to other stars at another time and is abridging the story for now. However, let it be said that it is quite likely that a brown dwarf was involved at one point in time, that this all relates to galactic filaments of stars, the local cluster, and can be determined using the fixed stars we observe as Jim Wininger has begun to do.
So, the creation of grandchildren from Saturn’s moons (ie Earth creating its moon) is what allowed Saturn to get around Jupiter to reach the outer position in the solar system.
In the process, several of Saturn’s moons would likely have been captured, or even eaten by Jupiter. One was likely destroyed, leaving its rings, and several were ejected from Saturn’s system to become our terrestrial planets. Recent evidence shows that Saturn’s rings did likely form “from a moon that crashed into the planet”.
This is really not so different from what mainstream science already proposes with the Nice model or other planetary re-arrangement scenarios. The primary difference here is that it doesn’t rely on accretion, and so, makes sense of the timeline evidence. It also does away with the idea of many planetoids crashing, exploding and re-accreting, which is common in many astrophysical theories, and also presents timeline problems.
Instead, the birth of the solar system’s planets, moons, comets, asteroids and NEO’s follows a natural logarithmic timeline of continuous expansion. We simply divide it into periods to observe them.
The periods are not arbitrary since they are found as intervals of cycles, but our notion of time is still wildly geocentric.
Now let us return to our primary topic of asteroid belts and their nature as recursionary lunar debris.
The EARTH and MOON’S FORMATION
The process of our Moon escaping low Earth orbit proceeded in an evolving oscillatory pattern. Near each one of the Moon’s closest approaches towards Earth, its surface would have been heated and expanded at its closest point to Earth. This then caused ejections of mass/charge/plasma from the lunar surface where gravity was lowest between the Earth and Moon.
Initially, this involved most of the nearside lunar surface, creating the magna ocean we see remnants of today. The origin of the magmatic surface is still hotly debated, but this new paradigm makes sense of it. In the later stages, as the moon had gained some distance and a more circular orbit by repeated surface ejections, the closest approaches occurred primarily at the lunar mares.
The Moon’s retreat from Earth was not linear, and until now, the nature of this process has not been fully understood, even if it has been articulated. The retreat from Earth went fast, then slow, then fast, then somewhere in between those speeds.
However, the author’s new model of gravimetrics utilizes the non-linear Lorenz equations and thermodynamic attractor relationships to illustrates the evolution of this process in a new light.
This is how infinite sets and infinities are regularized as whole numbers and whole units and applied to celestial bodies.
LORENZ EQUATIONS for ORBITAL and ROTATIONAL PERIODICITIES
In this new model, the Prandtl number of the Lorenz equations represents the ratio of diameters between the two bodies, and the Rayleigh number represents the rotation period for the primary body, and/or the orbital period for the satellite body.
The third variable always remains the same at 10. This is a linear variable, unlike the other two. It simply represents whole units, a 10 number-based system, and the inverse square law.
When we use this Chaos Theory based model, the evolution of orbital dynamics from stable to chaotic becomes very clear. We can see the evolutionary expansion of periodicities, homoclinic orbits becoming toroidal, and we can trace our solar system’s evolution back in time. Using this knowledge and a bifurcation logistics map, the process becomes clear.
In the end, it becomes apparent that the Theia Giant Impact did not occur as imagined. Furthermore, it seems far more likely that planetary impacts themselves are in fact rare, if not impossible, due to the change in densities that close approaches instigate, and the birth process outlined in this paper.
It also becomes likely that the primary factor leading to an expanding Earth was its relationship to the Moon’s distance, and that the Earth was initially half its current diameter, with a 2:1 diameter ratio.
That will be a bit hard to follow, so let me explain how they relate and this was discovered.
Mainstream science only discarded the Expanding Earth theory for lack of a cause. It was accepted theory for a fairly long time because it made sense of many geological phenomena. But the reason they couldn’t find the cause was that they did not consider the Moon.
Due to disregarding this truth about the original size of the Earth and the unavailability of the Lorenz equations, planetary bifurcations have been obscured from view for over a century. Which is why the evidence and theories we currently have are a bundle of contradictions and unsolved mysteries, and all these problems must be solved at once.
In fact, most of our mainstream accepted astrophysics theories are grounded in beliefs from before the Lorenz equations and chaos theory were discovered and their math articulated in the late 1970s. This is particularly important with regards to Special and General Relativity. So, to be clear, there is no fault in our collective misunderstanding. Many physicists and mathematicians are currently working to bridge quantum physics and general relativity and have far more elaborate explanations than the one presented here. The wider general public simply isn’t interested in these questions anymore.
It is only since the advent of these ideas, computers, and recent observations of exoplanets and recent discoveries regarding the Moon that this picture could even become clear. As an outside observer to the scientific community, the author simple has the freedom to articulate these observations and had the time to investigate them.
Now, let’s examine some of the accepted science.
It is currently accepted that soon after they formed, the Earth had a day length of about 6 hours and Moon’s revolution period (month) was about the same.
Scientists tell us that the earliest evidence of stable water on Earth dates to 4.2 billion years ago and shows up in the form of crystals at Jack Hills in Australia.
In order for this crystal to have formed, Earth needed liquid water and a stable cooled surface. However, at this rotation speed, and with a close Moon orbiting rapidly, the tidal effects should have been far too enormous to allow these conditions, affecting the solid surface with enormous force that would not have been stable.
This is a major mystery and problem for planetary scientists. However, using the Lorenz equations we find an elegant answer.
Because the Lorenz equations acknowledge and map system growth changes over time based on initial conditions, and the oscillation between stable and chaotic periods, they can elucidate how mass, diameters, and orbital radii all expand over time.
To briefly illustrate, using 6.4 as the Rayleigh number with a Prandtl number of 2 produces homoclinic orbits for both bodies, meaning stable, periodic orbits.
Homoclinic orbits are stable and periodic, but slowly expanding.
The Prandtl number is here a diameter ratio, so this means a 2:1 diameter ratio between the Earth and Moon.
The current diameter ratio of 4:1 wouldn’t work with a 6.4 time period in simulations, which is why current models don’t work to produce the crystal in Jack Hills or to explain how those stable conditions could have existed.
To illustrate this point further, we can look to Pluto and its largest moon, Charon.
The diameter ratio between Pluto and Charon is 2:1, and they have a matching rotation and revolution period of 6.4 hours.
Furthermore, Charon orbits Pluto at approximately the same distance that the Moon is predicted to have orbited the Earth at the time under consideration.
And what we find is a mutual tidal locking between Pluto and Charon in which the same side of Pluto also faces the same side of Charon, all the time.
Furthermore, in the space between where they face each other, a giant basin is forming and being filled with a giant ice cap made of methane and other gases.
Eventually, this will destabilize the resonances between them because it will increase Pluto’s diameter at its equator. Pluto’s axis of rotation will then move more towards upright to slow Pluto’s rotation speed, as an attempt to maintain Charon’s distance. Some of the ice will melt and become atmosphere and lost to space, and much will precipitate as recursions. Over time, an oscillation of this pattern will develop. Of course, without liquid water like on Earth, it is unlikely to follow Earth’s development.
However, this is how the water cycle on Earth started and how it relates to poleshifts and precession, and why the now dead lunar fault has exactly the same shape as Earth’s Pacific Plate. The mutual tidal locking of the Earth and Moon occurred over the Pacific Ocean. And this is why the oldest crust in the oceans is in the Pacific.
Pluto’s second largest moon is football shaped. Several recent pulsars and exoplanets have also been found in this elongated shape. Applying the Prandtl number instead as the dimension of the body, we can assess how stretched spheroids eventually bifurcate in another way that echoes the Mandelbrot and Julia Sets.
Such stretched spheres eventually break and become asteroids with smaller binaries. Examples are found everywhere, but we can just look to Dimorphos and Didymos that NASA’s Dart Mission is currently intercepting to study this September for one.
Thus, it seems quite safe to assume, and the extensive physical evidence the has author has presented elsewhere indicates, that this same mutual tidal locking occurred between the Earth and Moon over the Pacific Ocean when Earth’s day length was only ~ 6.4 hours, around 4.2 billion years ago, and the Earth was half its current diameter.
LOOSE ENDS
The calving, or birth of the Moon from the Pacific has also previously been proposed but was discarded as well because the mechanism of ejection was not clear. The missing factor has been shown to be perpendicular axial orientation while close to a larger body.
The old Earth Fission model was discarded precisely because a rotating body can’t spin fast enough while upright for surface material to separate. As explained, this is not the case when in a perpendicular axial orientation to one’s primary.
The cause of poleshifts and the escape mechanism of the Moon’s non-linear retreat and its functional relationship to precession has also remained an open topic of debate, even though orbital dynamics can predict them on short time frames. Here, I have shown them as an integral part of the formation of all systems where they act as phase shifts.
The multibody problem remains an elusive problem in current astrophysics. However, using the Lorenz equations to predict orbital and rotational periodic relationships with a logistic map of a bifurcations should be able to elucidate the entire pattern of stability and chaos.
The process of planetary ice cap formation and precessional pole tilting in order to stabilize the two Rayleigh numbers as an interconnected thermodynamic system is clearly elucidated and predictable using the Lorenz equations.
Putting it all together, we find a logarithmic relationship between the formation of the lunar mares and the asteroid belts and comet tails that Earth’s orbit saddles at certain points. These are not captured comets, but instead, ejected lunar bifurcations.
Of course, we do also pass thru other planets’ moon forming events, but the origin of their demise is usually clear as an emanation from a planet’s orbit. The orbital meteorite debris from our Moon includes comets Encke and others with orbits that perfectly emanates or overlap ours at key points.
LUNAR SURFACE PLASMAFICATION
In order for the Moon to have rounded out and reached its current orbit, it had to lose mass, and the Earth had to expand. Those mass ejections became the Late Heavy Bombardment and the comet and asteroid trails that produce many of our meteorite showers. In order not to shrink its diameter, the Moon likely ended up hollowing out and ejecting its core.
Each time a close approach occurred, a different portion of the Moon’s surface was plasmafied and ejected.
Initially, a large part of the lunar surface was magmafied, and during that time, the heat from the Moon’s core was able to escape to the surface and create enough force for the Moon to eject its own children objects. This explains how the Moon lost its heat and magnetic field and why so many small meteorites are made of iron.
It is also why ancient peoples aggregated around these sites as sacred and watched the stars to collect iron from the heavens.
Initially, the objects in the asteroid belts or their main objects would have been larger and heavier, so fell back to the Earth and Moon quickly over time. The largest ones bifurcated off smaller and smaller pieces periodically over time, creating a large part Earth’s climatic cycles in conjunction with the march of precession.
These are not singular, of directly causal relationships, but are instead reflections of larger cycles in a symphony of ways.
Because the size of the recursionary debris get smaller as a function of time, this also leads to a more stable climate and smaller swings in temperature over time.
Only with Earth’s diameter growth over time was a 4:1 diameter between the Earth and Moon ratio reached. When the ratio is harmonic at whole number intervals, planet sizes, orbital periods, and distances stabilize. When their sizes and distance stray from harmonic proportions, orbital size and planetary expansions change more quickly.
This also better explains why the so-called heavy bombardment only occurred on the side of the Moon facing Earth, even while the Moon was much closer to Earth than today. The debris ejected was returning to its source as recursionary derivatives not large enough to escape the Moon’s gravity. Of course, many of the lunar craters were actually caused by electro-magnetic high energy plasma exchanges between the Earth and Moon after the Moon had formed, but that is another topic of debate.
The largest pieces likely became much of the asteroid belt between the Earth, Moon and Mars, with Ceres being the largest Moon remnant leading the pack.
The total mass of the asteroid belt is only 3% of Earth, with Ceres, Vesta, Pallas, and Hygiea accounting for PHI x 100% (62%) of that mass. It is thus, unlikely to have been a planet in its own right. With that ratio, is far more likely to be primarily debris from the Earth and Moon’s early formation process and the Moon’s escape from low Earth orbit via the ejection of surface material at the lunar mares.
THE BIRTH OF OUR MOON
Now, let us rewind the process to show how Jupiter’s cycles created and affected this process. We pick up after the Earth and Moon have escaped Saturn, and the Earth has settled into its current position, though, not at its current distance from the Sun.
This likely occurred when all the planets were still much closer to the Sun and each other, and in particular, when Jupiter was still much closer to Earth.
Here, let me reiterate to the reader that the remanent of the Supernova birth process also continue at smaller amplitudes over time as Micronovas and CME events.
These events are meant to thermodynamically rebalance the solar system for the Sun and thus, are also in alignment with the planetary and lunar formation process. Furthermore, the Sun’s nova cycles naturally emanate from larger Galactic scale cycles.
So, after the Moon’s birth, what we would have found is a cyclical process of the Earth and Moon repeatedly getting pushed slightly together each time that Jupiter and Saturn conjuncted the Earth and Moon in their orbits.
And in fact, since our Moon’s mass was born from Saturn (via the Earth), it is indeed possible that Earth escaped first, and the Moon only escaped Saturn and reconnected with Earth later. It’s also possible the Moon has run away and been returned by its grandparent in the past. As stated above, this would be in a strange attractor scenario, as illustrated by the butterfly of chaos theory.
The jumbling and exchanging of planets as the system changes is the hardest part of the story to elucidate, even with the new tools presented here.
Moving on, the main reason why we have 12 sidereal months and 13 tropical lunar months is the push and pull of Jupiter’s proximity. Today, this effect is mild and those effects are now mostly only noticeable as Jupiter and Earth approach at their closest point in a 50–100 year cycle of minimum oppositions, as it has today, Sept 26, 2022 and last did in 1963.
A closer Jupiter pushes the Sun-Jupiter baryonic center further into the Sun as well, and this leads to less solar flares, depending on the proximities of Saturn, Earth and Venus, the other three planets that have the most effect on the solar system barycenter. This relationship between barycenter and solar activity is disputed by many scientists, but since many admittedly still don’t really understand how gravity works, that is to be expected. The Lorenz equations application outline here indicates that it is fairly certain to be the case.
The ratio of Earth’s orbital period to Jupiter’s is 12:1. It takes 12 Earth years for Jupiter to revolve around the sun once. However, due to precession, the Earth passes Jupiter 13 times during this one Jupiter year. This is how Earth’s lunar cycles ended up with 12.37 synodic months and 13.37 sidereal months.
Each of those 13 Earth-Moon-Jupiter-Sun conjunctions occurred at a slightly different angle. The 7 most intense approaches correspond to the 7 major plates on the Earth and major mares on the Moon, while the minor approaches correlate to the minor plates and mares.
Each approach location was not in the exact the same place every cycle, but each of the approaches did follow a repetitious pattern that drifts slowly. It is being mapped easily now that it is understood.
The later close approaches were centered around the mares and their adjacent lunar craters. The lunar mares and craters acted as anodes of electromagnetic plasma exchanges with cathodes on Earth which became mountains, volcanoes, or islands.
Together, this process shaped the Earth’s and Moon’s entire surfaces and created Earth’s fault system. By recognizing a diminishing logarithmic spiral in the orientation of the major lunar mares, anyone can begin to discern the pattern of diminishing surface plasmafications over time.
The exact timing of these approaches and its cycles and still being worked out by the author but should be available by the publication of the full book on this subject.
There is strong supporting proof that the most forceful approaches of the Moon to Earth created the plates. Not only do the shapes of the mares match continental formations on Earth, they directly relate in matching sequential pattern. The proof of this whole theory includes scores of recurrent asteroid impacts that line the edges of the mare outlines on Earth. These span millions of years and include recent meteorite showers as well. Furthermore, there is a plethora of oil, gas, gold and diamond mines that align to the craters adjacent to mare outlines or the mares in Earth overlays, all postulated to have been created by the pressure and electromagnetic exchanges a close Moon would produce. Finally, a myriad of sacred sites align to major craters, and thus illustrate the origins of Earths energy grid that creates ocean and air currents.
This includes Chicxulub crater, Machu Pichu, Rome and many other sacred cities whose sites that reflect this pattern; and the oil and gas fields of Texas, Canada, the Middle East and the Black Sea. Indeed, with this knowledge, we could easily predict and vast amounts of natural resources hitherto unknown. Both on the Earth and Moon.
As for the amount of findable wealth that is made available by this revelation, only time will tell. Far more valuable is the scientific insight and the opportunity to create an asteroid prediction paradigm and the possibility of averting future impacts, The real hope is the prospect for mapping mineral resources on the Moon and other celestial objects to eliminate scarcity on Earth.
Every point made in this paper requires much further elaboration, mathematical proofs, and many more data points to conclusively demonstrate. The author intends to publish a full-length book on this new fractal cosmology soon.
This outline was released to coincide with Jupiter’s closest approach on September 22, 2022, as a preview that hopefully inspires more interest. Thank you for reading. — JRB