The surface of Mars and its two satellites provides ample evidence supporting recent catastrophism in the Solar System. This volume concentrates on that evidence.
For example, the energy and momentum exchanges for the transition of the orbit of Mars from the catastrophic era to the modern era are provided in this volume. Back tracking the orbits of Venus, the Moon and Mars to the catastrophic year 701 B.C.E. all calculate well, which is a confirmation of this model of catastrophism.
The authors are convinced that any theory of cosmology to be taken seriously must be in harmony with celestial mechanics. The energy exchange and the angular momentum exchange, plus clues of their veracity are provided in chapters 9, 10 and 11.
The chapters in this book are sequential to those in Volume I, a volume entitled “The Recent Organization of the Solar System”. Volume I offers our readers a discussion of currently popular models of cosmology that in many ways does not fit the evidence.
Cosmology is not to be confused with astronomy, which is a study of the Solar System's present condition. Cosmology is a study of the history of the Solar System, and the role of the Earth-Moon system therein. Volume I indicates where Mars acquired its former orbit with an eccentricity of .56. That was its catastrophic era orbit.
A new model for the earlier stage of cosmology was offered. The discussion includes the ancient Graeco-Roman view, and Hebrew view with their attendant catastrophic sagas. The current belief in gradualism for four billion years was described, with its suppression of catastrophism. Astronomical evidence was presented that shows gradualism and its foundational Nebular Hypothesis are so faulty they should be discarded outright.
This new model of cosmology accepts the evidence of planetary catastrophes surrounding us. It is a model of recent orbit changes among Venus, the Earth and Mars. While not an “original thought”, the claim is that a reorganization occurred within the cultural memory of numerous groups of the Earth's inhabitants, who recorded their experiences.
Volume I offered astronomical evidence supporting a model that the Sun recently captured the planets, which were delivered to the Sun. This includes well known facts such as the impossibility of the Earth, in its present orbit, capturing the Moon. This also includes the impossibility of three pairs of planets acquiring twin spin rates by gradualist theory. The three pairs of twin spins are Neptune-Uranus, Jupiter-Saturn and Mars-Earth.
This model explains acquisition of planetary spins. Included are Mercury's slow, two-month forward spin period and the slow, 243-day backward spin period of Venus. Unlike the cosmologies being displaced, a single model of planetary catastrophism explains satellite acquisition, surface crater acquisition and immense surface lava flows on Mercury (with no volcanoes or volcanic craters).
Unlike the gradualistic models, this catastrophic model explains the rapid shrinkage of the Sun's diameter, the variable rotation gradient of its photosphere and its acquisition of its minor elements other than hydrogen and helium. The catastrophism modeled isn't random. It is a particular sequence of events resulting in ancient heritages and modern conditions.
Volume II is prepared to provide some three dozen more nails in the coffin of gradualism. Gradualism for Solar System origin is not a viable theory of cosmology for astronomy, geology, biology, anthropology or any discipline. This is because its proponents fail to accommodate an increasing body of evidence for recent planetary catastrophes.
The authors have been troubled by the disparity among accepted models for “nature,” ... Earth history ... offered in universities. An example is that engineers are taught quite early that glaciers melt from the bottom up. Hikers, of course, know this before entering a school of engineering.
Ice caves, the streamlets, creeks and rivers fed by the melting of the glacial ice, all verify the basic engineering principles. Such melting washes all fine silt away, leaving only the more coarse gravel and large stones rafted to their position by the downward creep of the moving glacier.
Several continents on the Earth have places where many boulders are found positioned hundreds of miles, even a thousand miles from their place of formation. They are termed “erratic boulders”. These boulders are usually found at elevations higher than their place of origin. They are usually further inland from the coast than their original place of formation.
The presence of silt “fines” integral with these boulders, and the fact that they are inland and uphill can be explained only by their being moved by high velocity water. Water, in velocities capable for entraining, was their transport.
Volume III will discuss the 150-ton erratic boulders found in North
India, 1,000+ miles from their place of origin, South India. By direction,
their relocations average north by 10( west from their place of origin,
South India. The final site of Noah's Ark also is a relocation of
north by 10° west from its construction site (pre-flood Shuruppak).
The horizontal distance of the Ark's relocation is only 525 miles.
The Ark's vertical distance of relocation is only 6,100 feet higher than pre-flood Shuruppak. It is not known what velocity of water is required to entrain 150-ton boulders, but it is known that 150-ton boulders will silt out of waters whose velocity slows down to below 173 mph.
The gradualistic theory of those erratic boulders in North India is that they were rafted into their modern location by floating ice floes, floating over 1,000 miles. Allegedly, they were floated from the tropical south to North India, and were relocated uphill from their place of origin. Had this actually happened, the physical evidence would have been very different.
Glacial rafting theories never explain how glacial ice melted without washing away the silt. Ice floes do not flow uphill, nor do they flow from the tropics to the mid latitudes. In fact, none of the evidence actually found supports the ice rafting notion. Modern science is rife with such merry but fanciful theories supported only by wishful thinking and repetition.
Chapter 7 of this volume is an opening volley on icy catastrophism.
It begins with once rampaging rivers, and the dry river beds of Mars, a
cold planet with no water vapor and almost no atmosphere. Hebrew
Talmudic literature mentions that the climate for Noah became very cold
after one of the ancient catastrophes, and that particular catastrophe
happens to be Noah's Flood. Is this a clue to the Earth's ice age?
Volume II presents evidence, not opinions, on “The Scars of Mars,” and it is evidence impossible by forces currently accepted by gradualists. The characteristic all gradualist theories have in common is that each part of the current explanation requires ignorance of related disciplines.
Geologists must remain ignorant of hydrodynamics and the physical geography of the planets and their satellites. Astronomers must maintain an ignorance of (or an apathy toward) geography, ancient literature and “Marsography,” the physical geography displayed on the surface of Mars. All proponents of the popular cosmology must remain ignorant of ancient cultural stories and traditions, or at least assume these are without historical foundation.
The specific subjects presented here include the evidence of repeated close flybys of the Earth, and the near demise of the red planet. The effect of near destruction on the planet Mars and the consequential orbital effects on the Earth's orbit, and that of the Moon, are offered. Evidence is cited of repeated, recent torture of the surface of the tiny red planet. Support of this model of planetary catastrophism is identified with each bit of evidence.
The format employed by the authors is an edifice of cosmology. A 70-story structure is being built, story upon story, that is consistent with planetary catastrophism. Vol. I built the first 18 stories Vol. II is now adding the next 47 stories. Some of the areas of evidence are inconsistent with more popular theories; yet no other theory of cosmology ever offered can so greedily incorporate all of the evidence, without exception.
The lore of each scientific discipline has been so permeated by dependence upon gradualism that physical evidence and even ancient eye witness accounts must be rejected or ignored to maintain the fashionable fantasy. The reader may or may not agree with the authors in all of their conclusions. However, the reader will never again be able to read items like “the Sun's diameter periodically contracts and expands” without asking the obvious questions.
What is the current rate of the shrinkage of the Sun's diameter?
What is the history of the rate of change for the Sun's diameter?
Does the available data, plotted on a graph, fit an oscillating model or
a decay model? (It fits a decay curve.) The authors are encouraging
the reader to “think and become unpopular”. Neither scientific history
nor reality itself are modified by majority votes at scientific conventions.
One 19th century doctor concluded that an unknown substance (bacteria) was contagious and was transported in the childbirth wards of hospitals in Vienna and Budapest from one new mother to another by dirty hands of attending physicians. Maternal mortality rates were high. Those rates were drastically reduced when his hand-washing directives were followed.
The medical societies of first Vienna and then Budapest went into uproars, implicating doctors as the problem. They ran that doctor out of town, first Vienna, then Budapest. This was despite the results of his procedure, washing of hands, which produced dramatic results in lowered mortality rates in maternity wards. Within fifteen years, Pasteur discovered bacteria.
No concept, no model of reality is worthy of a second glance unless all of the evidence is either supportive of that model, or else such evidence is incorrectly recorded. Further, any model worth its salt will correctly predict future discovery.
An example is a correct theory of cause and dating of the genesis of the asteroids. Another example is evidence of a former ring system of Mars. A third example is the correct theory for the origin of the short term icy comets in our Solar System. A fourth example is a sensible theory for the cause and the dating of Noah's Flood.
The authors throw temerity to the ethers and predict some specific discoveries about our planetary neighbors, an ancient ring system of Mars, the scars on the surface of Venus, the genesis of the Earth's petroleum pools, the genesis of the volcanoes of Mars, and many other subjects.
Like the evidence already before us, future discoveries will collectively
support only a recent organization of the Solar System. The Sun and
the Earth neither coalesced from gases into their present relationship,
nor did the Sun have a hiccup or two to produce material to become any
of the planets. This is so, regardless of any capricious dating.