TNT SCIENCE & EDUCATION

Is there a reason much on earth is designed to keep people in a lower vibration?

   Colour spectrum registrations in the body appear as manifestations of a variety of physical, emotional and psychological states. The knock on affects on health cannot be left understated. It is known that lower vibrational states equate to the detrimental and higher to beneficial. E.g. In lower, fight or flight, digestive and lack of higher thinking associated with imagination, ideas, creativity, emotional wellbeing and general health.

   Meditation and prayer have also surprising and similar effects that register with and beyond the internal spectrum, as numerous experiments openly indicate. As these correlative elements fall outside allopathic or established materialist scientific models; their scope of influence on the human condition is relegated to quackery. As a side note the well known particle-wave experiment concludes that a wave or a particle comes into its physical state of being through observance. A conclusion offers evidence that our will, perspective or intention play a part in physical manifestation. This leads to uncomfortable ideas relating to the dogged materialist view.

   It is interesting to note that fear is said to be the mind killer, known to inhibit certain thinking abilities, make the subject malleable to influence and accepting of external solutions. Furthermore, it is intriguing that no colour spectrum figure appears for, courage.

Jon Solis, Jan 2023.

ARE THE STARS AND PLANETS WHAT THEY TOLD US THEY ARE?

Emotional Stimuli Colour Different Regions of the Body

 “Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wonder off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.” – Nikola Tesla.

   What we are taught from established science academic publications regarding the behaviour and attributes of planets did not coincide with observations. Regardless, the study of such publications is certification required reading. This fact confounds reason itself.

   In the ancient world planets were known. They were referred to as wondering stars. Such a notion today is scoffed at. The ancient world is portrayed as backward, ignorant and superstitious. However, our so called modern world might very well be guilty of that which was said about the people of former times. In the ancient world, astronomers were also astrologers and they were considered symbiotic disciplines. There is an argument to be made for the fact that they might have weight to that debate.

   When it comes to the observation of both stars and planets; there are apparent discrepancies between what NASA produces and what is being seen. NASA images appear predominately digital representations rather than actual images. It is fair to say that distance may cause degrees of distortion. Even if that is the case; the actual physical bodies in themselves seem to put in question the form, colour and light attributes.

   Rather than reflecting light, observation also suggests that they emit it. This is one issue contradicting the convention. As for stars, there observation suggests something more perplexing in their observed behaviour. Not only are we seeing bizarre shifting forms outside the perimeters of visual distortion, also actual form, twinkling and colour. These go beyond what the expected behaviour is supposed to be.

Jon Solis, Dec 2022.

   The question might seem preposterous before the church of science. Those in establishment scientific institutions at times appear as gatekeepers of their dogma ready to accuse of heresy. This is one of several articles in a series relating to cosmology that are likely to have acolytes of the church of scientism pulling their hair out and scream “It’s the Science!”

   In recent years questions have arisen about some of the scientific tenets. Over and above that, there has been life affecting scientific knowledge which has been suppressed. When scientists and researchers look outside accepted paradigms, review observations and experiments; ridicule, banishment and negative openly public campaigns have been a practice to discredit.

WATER GOT WEIRDER

When we were taught elementary science, water was described to have three states, solid, liquid and gas. It appears there is a forth state, and it's quite mysterious.

   Despite this bizarre and compelling forth state we shall address shortly; aspects of water have continued to interest scientists who walk the fringe tightrope where the tenured might be baffled at the tangible results. The wondrous water covering some two-thirds or more of our green and blue home has revealed a further mystery. We might consider it odd that more can be known about a celestial body that has been relatively speaking a recent studied phenomena.

   This miraculous life sustaining element does not tend to be given a second thought when we turn on our taps. Maintaining a clean, healthy and unadulterated supply is a fundamental right due to the nature of what it does for all life. Those charged with its care have on dire occasions been grossly wanting in its treatment which has been the cause of great harm and may have treatment protocols that are not the best practice.

   "It wasn't a case of antibiotics or vaccines that caused the prevalence of disease and death to plummet; but proper sewage, waste disposal, and most vitally, clean water sources." - Dr Sam Bailey.

   "It's clear most water is sick and toxic and a major contributor to illness. If we are ever to change the course of disease patterns in our world, it must start with clean, healthy water."

"Clean healthy water should be free of any toxins: no chlorine, fluoride, no aluminium, no lead, no pharmaceutical residues, no microplastics - nothing should be present that is not a natural component of water flowing in a healthy mountain stream." – Thomas S. Cowan, MD and Sally Fallon Morell. (The Contagion Myth. Why Viruses (including "Coronavirus") Are Not the Cause of Disease.

   Dr Gerald Pollack and Dr Gilbert Ling were the first to relate the fourth state of water. Under certain conditions water remains for a period in droplet form. These droplets are in a crystalline structure when close to a hydrophilic (water-attracting) surface. This occurs as the elemental environment causes what is termed an exclusion zone, and other molecules or chemicals cannot penetrate the droplet crystalline structure. The water in this state has gel-like consistency. The experiments showed that other particles would repel from the droplet exclusion zone to a hair's width distance. The discovery is astonishing in view of the standard model taught regarding the behaviour of water. In the case of cells it was said the fluid in and externally were alike and it was only the membrane that provided a barrier. It is believed that heat and light aid in the forming of greater exclusion zones both in and outside cells. This gives weight to the notion that sauna and sunlight exposure provides invigoration, also why body temperature increases such as with fevers. The argument that using pharmaceuticals to control fevers unless they are of a dangerous level may not be a good idea as far as health and healing are concerned.

Jon Solis, 2022.

THE MOON IS STRANGE

Has an astral body as logic defying as our moon been discovered? The facts could be mistaken for fiction, if indeed they are facts.

    That the subject is not widely and openly discussed in the public arena might appear odd. The moon is stranger than that if the data is to be believed. This being common knowledge we may ask ourselves why we were never taught those alleged facts when studying the solar system in school? The solar system will be the focus of another in-depth article. If what is read leaves you nonplussed; The data regarding the solar system is topped full with astoundingly contradictions.

   The following information is documented and is claimed to be valid. The moon doesn’t rotate on its axis and shows the same side towards earth. No other planetary body at least in our solar system does that. It is simply inexplicable. It is the only astral body in our solar system that has a near perfect circular orbit. The moon’s centre of mass is about six thousand feet closer to earth than its geometric centre, which should result in a wobble, however the moon is more egg shaped.

   The moon is believed to be much older than previously thought. Perhaps older than the earth or our system’s star. The earth is believed to be approximately 4.6 billion years old where the moon rocks were estimated at 5.3 billion years of age. Go figure. Though ageing sciences have been called into question, such a detail, regardless of time spans, calls into question numerous theories.

   The chemical components on the dust beneath the rocks differs to that of the rocks. The consensus being that the rocks were not native to the planet. Planetary geology usually indicates that materials closer to the core are denser or heavier than those closer to the surface. This is not the case with the moon. The abundance of titanium on the surface leads to speculation that these elements must have been brought to the surface, but they do not know how. The fact that they have been ‘brought’ to the surface leaves us with questions.

   An extensive water vapour cloud covering a hundred square miles for fourteen hours was claimed recorded by sensing equipment on one of the lunar landings. Magnetised moon rocks have been discovered in spite of there being no magnetic field on the moon. A close encounter with another astral body is discounted as it is agreed that it would have ripped the moon apart. Moon craters that originate internally suggest volcanic activity, however, the moon has not been thought to ever be hot enough for volcanos to exist. Mascons are large dense, circular and are found at forty miles beneath the moon’s maria. The disk shaped objects suggest artificial construction. It is found odd that these disk shapes appear centred beneath each huge maria. Moonquakes are reported every year that are not attributed to meteor strikes.

   Soviet astronomer Nikolay A. Kozyrev of the Crimean Astrophysical observatory photographed a gaseous eruption near the Alphonsus crater on the moon. A reddish glow was detected for approximately half an hour. Astronomers from the Lowell Observatory later discovered glowing parts on the crests of Aristarchus region ridges in 1963. The observations have been periodical and repeat themselves as the moon moves closer to the earth. These are not believed to follow a natural phenomena pattern. There have been numerous reports of lights and flashes emitted from the moon at various locations. Flashes have been observed on the moon since 1540. One year before the documented lunar landing, over five hundred and seventy flashes or lights were observed on the moon. The moon density data suggests hollow sections of the moon according to Nobel chemist prize winner Dr. Harold Urey. NASA scientist Dr. Gordon MacDonald stated in 1962 that the data suggested more of a hollow than homogeneous sphere. MIT’s Dr. Sean C. Solomon said that the Lunar Orbiter experiments suggested the frightening possibility that the moon might be hollow. In 1962 the Apollo 12 crew ejected the ascent stage of their module. It crashed onto the surface of the moon with astonishing results. It was said that the moon reverberated like a bell for an hour. Similar yet greater phenomena occurred with Apollo 13. Seismic instruments recorded reverberations that lasted more than three hours and travelled to a depth of twenty-five miles. Leading again to hollow conclusion.

   The crust proved unexpectedly hard. The astronauts had extreme difficulty drilling into the maria. It is composed of illuminate, a mineral with large quantities of titanium witch is commonly used on deep diving vessels. All the former main theories for how the moon’s existence came about have been disproved as not possible in light of the discoveries. The moon’s diameter and distance is simply too precise for the coincidences. Its precision is such to completely cover the sun during an eclipse. The sun is about four hundred times the size of the moon and four hundred times the distance from it. The sun and moon appear nearly the same size when viewed from the earth. The coincidence is perplexing. An unusual artificial looking bridge between two craters has been verified by two independent scientific sources. It was thought incredible that such a thing could be naturally formed and last through all the ages the moon has existed. In 1968 a one and half mile high obelisk like tower was discovered by Orbiter three. Dr. Bruce Cornet was convinced that no natural process could have explained the existence of the structure. The Sinus Media region tower climbs five miles from the lunar surface. Throughout history there have been compelling correlations between moon phenomena and ancient sites. All the recorded and compiled data suggest the moon to logically be an astral ship. None of the data contradicts the theory. The moon has been slowing down the earth’s spin over time. It is estimated that an earth day would be six hours if it were not for the moon. This list of strange facts about the moon is incomplete. NASA is a government and military body, state organisations are historically known for the concealment of knowledge and information. It would be illogical and foolish to wholeheartedly believe everything ‘establishments’ tell us. Deception and dishonesty is prevalent historic fact.

   Due to observations and contradictions; it is very difficult to verify what is actually scientific fact regarding the moon and its properties, as it is to discover whom is providing false information. 

Jon Solis, 2022.

SUN AND WATER, WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT

Who would have guessed at such a close relationship between two life sustaining entities that has gone near unnoticed.

   Unless keenly interested in such matters; a press release on July 17, 1997 from the University of Waterloo, Ontario Canada, would have gone unnoticed. Researchers confirmed, ‘water exists on the sun’. Such a proclamation would in deed cause a head scratching moment of incomprehension. Then again, we note that the sun isn’t some super dense gassy burning ball of nuclear flames we are still taught as kids in school. Telescopes reveal that is appears to be hollow when viewing surface eruptions. On face value, rather than revealing, science at times seems to correct former errors and gives rise greater astounding questions. In this case, the answers are quantifiable.

   The conclusive demonstration that steam, for want of a simpler noun, rather than water existing on the sun, was based on dramatic findings some years prior. The method which shall be used to model systems of extreme heat water molecules such as in intense fires; was based on innovations to calculate a water spectrum in regions of sunspot temperatures. Oleg Polyansky from the Institute Of Applied Physics in Russia lead a team including, Nizhnii Novgorod, working with co-researcher, University College, London based physicist Jonathan Tennyson and UW chemistry Professor Peter Bernath, expert in molecular astronomy. Further team members from University College London included Serena Viti, physicist, Nikolai Zobov, physicist and Tucson Arizona’s Kitt Peak National Observatory astronomer, Kitt Peak.

   In a study undertaken in 1995, evidence of water was observed by the team in the form of vapour within dark sunspots. Infrared spectrums of sunspots were compared with hot water lab samples. In their 1995 study, the team recorded evidence of water, not in liquid form because the sun is too hot, but as vapour or steam in dark sunspots. The scientists compared the laboratory infrared spectrum of hot water with that of a sunspot. The vapour causes momentary ‘stellar greenhouse effects’ affecting sunspot energy readings. Hot water molecules are the predominant absorbers of radiation in atmospheres of cooler red giants. Their subsequent study published in the Science journal expressed the analysis of extremely hot water vapour spectrum found both in the laboratory and sunspots. Hot water complex infrared is distinguished by a series of sharp dense absorption lines. It was previously unknown the changes that caused said lines. Simulations carried out by the research team used theoretical calculations allowing an accurate measuring out of absorption lines.

   By directly applying theory used to calculate interacting energy of water atoms, sophisticated variation calculations of energy levels; the research team predicted position transitions that generate absorption lines.

   “Our research team solved the problem by doing something completely different… Starting with a mathematical model that is progressively improved through perturbation theory doesn't work for hot water… The calculations were so good that they were close enough to the observations for us to make sense of the spectrum.” — Peter Bernath, team leader.

   “The detailed interpretation of the infrared spectrum of hot water is one of the most important unsolved problems in the molecular spectroscopy.” — Research team article quote published in Science.

   Spectroscopy is the study of light and matter interactions. Research spectroscopic data will be instrumental in modelling alternate systems containing hot water molecules, as found in large intense fires and rocket discharge. The spectral analysis captures wavelength patterns assimilated or released by molecules. University of Waterloo, Ontario Canada, News Bureau contact, John Morris. Prof Peter Bernath,

Jon Solis, 2022.

THE SOLAR SYSTEM DOESN'T MAKE SENSE

Observations of our solar system's behaviour does not appear to match scientific explanation.

   A recent article shed light on the known yet not commonly disseminated peculiarities with moon data. As children we might have sat in awe as the planetarium took us on a journey through astronomical wonders. We would have had no notion about the mountains of solar system data that did not make sense. A primary source of university educational material states at the start that the data does not support theories. When the fish swim in the school, whom and what information will they be able to put their trust? It may be logical to question the validity of the academic community or the knowledge a certificate says is held. From an astrophysics curriculum book. One might need to re-read it several times before the gravity of the meaning and its repercussions settles.

   "THUS FAR WE HAVE SEEN THAT WE KNOW VERY LITTLE OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM."

   "…ALL SUGGESTED ACCOUNTS OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM ARE SUBJECT TO SERIOUS OBJECTIONS. THE CONCLUSION IN THE PRESENT STATE OF THE SUBJECT WOULD BE THAT THE SYSTEM CANNOT EXIST."

   The so named evolutionary solar system model is heavily flawed, it is interesting that most of us are blissfully uninformed of such a fact. The explanations given for the composition, behaviour and factual data make no sense. To call it a theory might be grossly unfair to the meaning of the word, or even that of postulation and hypothesis. More accurately; it should be called a fictional fantasy of the nonsensical kind. The church of science at times appears to have fanatical beliefs associated with that of a cult. Dissenters are ridiculed publicly for not towing the theoretical line or having the intelligence of academic acumen. When searching for truth; we may discover that the questions are infinitely more interesting than the currently unfathomable.

   Establishment Scientism kept on telling us that the earth was ‘pear’ shaped or oval at its equator. The latest high resolution HD imaging from Russian satellites claims to show a near perfectly round sphere to the eye. Ok, so that might be a touch confusing, but this is a minor point only to frame the stream of uncomfortable facts.

   In a nut shell; the current scientism model: The solar system forms from a large swirling clouds of dust and gas, asteroids or planetesimals collide and form the planets on an ecliptic plane which forms from the anticlockwise rotation around the sun, except Pluto, demoted and promoted to planetary status. Closer to the sun equals hotter, no chance of gaseous, water vapour as well as rocky, the outer more inversely so. The stunning problem; it doesn’t work.

   Problems with the scientism model: How gas, dust and small rocks stick together can be modelled but, you cannot achieve that with planetoids or asteroids to form planets. The model claims that somehow asteroids acquire a gravitational field and form planets, they have no idea how this happens, it’s a postulation. Let’s look at the anomalies of each planet.

   

Mercury.

   The planet closest to the sun has the highest density of all the solar planets. The problem being that it is too small to have the density it has within the discussed model. The absence of the large gravitational field means it should not be able to compact its planetary material to such a density. It is believed that over seventy percent of the planet has an iron core. The major problem with the data is that the solar model cannot account for the possibility of its density, it simply should not be so. Sometime later when Mariner 10 discovered that Mercury had a gravitational field whereas it should not. This produced a substantial problem. For a planet with a gravitational field that is billions of years old requires a moving molten core to create the field. All planets that have magnetic fields require molten cores. Thus, Mercury should have a molten core and not have the density or planetary data it produces. Because the planet is so small it should have cooled and frozen eons ago. As the core is solid, it should not have a magnetic field. The proposed explanations for this to conceivably occur are highly technical and subsequently make whole model implausible again.

Venus.

   The solar model would state that Venus should be quite similar to earth due to its size, mass and forming closely to earth from the same materials. Venus has one tectonic plate, a carbon dioxide atmosphere, clouds of concentrated sulphuric acid, a nine hundred degrees Fahrenheit temperature at ninety atmospheres of pressure. Venus is the hottest planet in the system as opposed to Mercury and has no magnetic field. It should according to the model. Venus’ planetary surface appears much younger than it should. The erosion and damage is not indicative under solar model definitions; that is to say with sulphuric acid, the degree of heat and conditions. It is very unlikely to have a craggy rock surface unless much younger than imagined. The planet also rotates in an alternate direction than it should. The proposed reason for the stark changes from its solar model are; bulge gravitational breaking change. There is no tidal bulge, it is near perfectly spherical. An asteroid hit it and it spun the wrong way; which is a similar proposal for some of the Mercury outlined anomalies. The problem is that the two degree of axial tilt seems far too small. As well as considering that the orbit is the most circular of all the solar planets, making it extremely unlikely or more correctly, having no evidence of a massive asteroid collision caused anomalies.

Earth.

   Our day lasts for twenty-four hours. There is no reason for it to be so in the solar system as days range from ten hours to approximately two-hundred days. What is the significance? If we rotated faster we would have violent winds, too slow and the massive temperature changes would likely harm current forms of life. The degree of our axial tilt allows for relative temperate seasons on a solar system scale. There is no reason for the tilt to be that favourable as axial tilts vary greatly in the solar system (refer to prior and later stated planetary temperature for comparison). The extremely favourable circular orbit gives relative climate stability. The breathable protective atmosphere found on earth in our solar system should not be necessarily so given the Venus generic data. Any fairly minor tilt one way or the other in that composition would result in either a similarly Venus surface condition or a frozen planet. The approximate seventy percent surface water so necessary for life should not be there given the solar model. In other words, Earth is too close to the sun to have so much water. Supposedly the Earth never used to have it. Yet again the postulation proposed is a big asteroid/ comet planetesimal covered in water hit it. So far the first three planets can only be explained by a perfect planetoid strike to cause the effect. Earth has a magnetic field much of life is dependent on, just as Mercury has one but shouldn’t, Venus doesn’t have one but should; Earth has one and there is no conventional reason that it should. The proposed dynamo field theory does not work for any of the planets thus far though it was postulated as a response to the Earthly field. Paraphrasing from a quote, ‘The method for geometric field generation remains an unsolved problem at the centre of the issue.’ The magnetic field problem becomes acute when it is stated that the recorded historical wild fluctuations in the field dictate a strong belief that the field could not be millions of years old. Though this leads to more questions that cannot be answered. This does not automatically substantiate a bipolar model belief system. What were we taught in school about magnetism, not what is now stated. ‘Magnetism is pretty much as puzzling now as it was when William Gilbert wrote Concerning Magnetism, Magnetic Bodies and The Great Magnet.’ We will bypass the moon as it is the subject of an earlier article.

Mars.

   Mars has been discovered to be a planet of substantial extremes. The guessed at former water erosion has been disproved in numerous places observed over time. The deep thermokarst leaves similarly looking evidence to that of water erosion. The atmosphere is too thin to sustain water and it would evaporate, i.e. No surface water. Water on Mars is physically impossible under the solar model. Postulation proposed. ‘Mars used to have a different atmosphere and water, but was hit by a giant asteroid.’ The massive asteroid guess gets a fourth strike. Supposed trace amounts of carbonates of limestone suggest water, but substantial amounts of chemicals that break down in water are found in tact. Though some data appears anomalous; the possibility of large surface water evidence is non existent. The asteroid postulation appears ever less likely. The evidence of water can have other explanations, given the contradictory evidence. We must be familiar with the NASA Mars hype we get to lead us to believe in a certain direction. Why the big rush to go there and bypass the Moon? Since 1970 all interest in the moon as evaporated as quickly as the Mars water postulation. To surmise, no real evidence of surface water, quite the opposite, as well as the materials dispelling prior water and the likely fictitious giant meteor strike.

Jupiter.

   The biggest of planets in our solar system has a ten hour planetary axial spin. It’s moving very fast for its size. The solar model of planetary growth due to random meteor strikes from the gaseous cloud cannot mathematically account for such a spin rate. Plausible spin rates due to random impact are calculated to be as much as once a week at most. Certainly not once a day or even ten hours for that matter. Only feasible postulation for the spin speed; an unaccounted, unknown unexplainable external force which goes against the solar model. Jupiter is baffling and next to nothing is known about how or where it could have been formed. Jupiter measurements continue to confound. Atmospheric composition that should be there is not. It is postulated that the gaseous giant should be composed of the solar model materials. It does not fit the model. A brief look at Jupiter moon phenomena. Io has massive volcanic activity according to voyager data; this should not be the case in the solar model, i.e. A dead cold ancient solar body. Europa is the smoothest planet and completely frozen. Yet right beside it is Callisto, the most heavily cratered planet in the system. The solar model cannot account for them being so immensely different given their closeness. Both moons are about half ice, Europa has a core and Callisto does not. The fact that they are so dissimilar given the evidence; is not easily explained and certainly not by the solar model. Ganymed’s surface is a puzzle and like other planetoids has a magnetic field that should not be there. There is more anomalous data to explore regarding Jupiters’ moons.

Saturn.

   Famous for being the ringed planet; these rings comprising debris, dust, rocks and some boulders are too young for the solar model. The former belief that they were formed at the time of the planet formation has been dropped. Their state, place and behaviour is not indicative of planetary aged formation. The postulated solution to this solar model problem; a planetoid strike. Barring Jupiter every anomaly thus far revealed is proposed to be explained by a planetoid, planetesimal or asteroid strike. The observed spoke effect and braiding of rings is anomalous and unexplainable in light of the data on ring behaviour. Enceladus is a Saturn moon that shoots out massive geysers believed to be affecting the rings. Enceladus is said to be far too old to be doing this. Mimas a similar sized moon of Saturn does not reproduce the phenomena. Once again, planetary adjacent moons claimed to be formed in accordance with the solar model with completely different behaviour. Titan has a methane atmosphere which is problematic for a billions of years old planetoid as sunlight breaks up methane. The assumption would be that the only way to sustain a methane atmosphere is to be replenished by massive planetary methane seas. There is no subsequent evidence of this. The atmosphere, if any, should not be methane. The so named dancing moons of Saturn Janis and Epimetheus swap around, they switch places to be closer to Saturn. It is not known why.

Uranus.

   A faintly ringed planet that also does not behave as it should. Rather than spin like the rest of the planets; it roles like a ball in its solar orbit. The proposed solution to this problem; yes, you’ve guessed, a massive astro planetary collision. Even a wild stretch of imagination cannot account for a collision that would cause the resulting spin that knocked it on its side. Uranus also has a relatively precise unexpected circular solar orbit. Uranus’ moons also orbit relative to the vertical axial. They orbit around the equator at near right angles to the ecliptic. If Uranus was tipped on its side, its current state is not accounted for in the solar model. Relative precise orbits are inexplicable; whereas haphazard ones would be expected. Mathematical models suggest the moons should not be there in their current and behavioural state. All gaseous planets radiate more energy than they receive from the sun; Uranus does not. This is once again unexplained by the solar model. Beyond the bizarre, Uranus’ magnetic axis has an approximate sixty degree tilt relative to its rotational axis. It is not known why. The magnetic field does not line up with planet rotation, furthermore the axis is offset from the planet centre. Miranda is a Uranus moon with highly anomalous and inconsistent stark terrain changes with near geometrically formed borders between them. They defy natural causation and the solar model. The proposed answer; a large asteroid collision. For the collision proposal to function in the case of Miranda; it would need to be struck approximately five times, thus shatter, coalesce and repeat the times necessary. The problem is that the current features are extremely hard to explain regardless. The real reasons for Miranda’s existence remains unknown.

Neptune.

   As an old cold and dead planet, being furthest from the sun in a cold section of the solar model; it radiates twice the energy received from the sun. A surface visible spot has altered since viewing started and its atmosphere changes are not indicative of a relatively old planet. It has anomalous magnetic field behaviour similar to Uranus. The discovery of two planets with similarly strange magnetic field behaviour in the current solar model is extremely unlikely. An important factor relating to the standard solar model; it cannot explain how two gaseous giants, that is Uranus and Neptune, could form at the outer edge of the solar model. The slow gravitational accretion would require more time than the probable existence of the solar system to produce both astro bodies. No scenarios can be produced to account for Uranus and Neptune.

Pluto.

   The planetary escaped moon theory is not substantiated sufficiently. Pluto has several moons, one extremely large. It is undecided whether they are all Neptune escaped moons. Furthermore there is the comet anomaly regarding the standard solar model.

   The Safronov calculations from the seventies makes clear that the standard solar model requirement for outer forming solar planets would require a time scale beyond reason. In summary, the standard solar model hardly, where it cannot in so many cases, account for the solar system, its bodies, behaviour and or composition. Fundamental questions of science remain unanswered and the theories border on the preposterous, yet you a student must pay, take an exam and provide ridiculous theories to attain a respected diploma.

   Fanatical scientism’s accidental and deliberate delusion seems entrenched in society, and any who speak of inconsistencies that cannot be ignored are ridiculed regardless of their education, research and or findings.

Jon Solis, 2022.

THE SO CALLED LAWS OF SCIENCE MIGHT BE BROKEN

We are aware that the victor rewrites history, and evidence of that fact abounds. Dogma dictate from state administered education is predominately unquestioned if you wish to receive your diploma. Rumblings from former scientists who present to the public at large are accused of heresy and berated by zealot priests from the church of science. It's not to say that principals of observation require complete rewriting, but perhaps adjustment.

   At face value; the stirrings that shake public facing organisations appear to be a modern phenomena. They are rarely of interest to the mass corporate media unless they can no longe go ignored. It is however not a modern narrative. There have been disagreements, presentations, public papers, contradictory scientific study for decades. The difference is that today, among the public, growing distrust has lead to a substantial increase doing their own research, comparison and reasoning. On the one hand we are instructed that the aim of science is to question, disprove and find a more accurate explanation on any given subject. On the other hand, don't question, believe the chosen scientists because they know and you don't. Academic establishment based popular presentations openly ridicule and give ludicrous unverifiable explanations which do not reflect the basic scientific method. This is to greater or lesser degree a growing concern in almost every branch of science. The fear is that the world view must be changed because it does not stand up to scientific scrutiny. Like a Swiss cheese where the holes outnumber the amount of actual cheese. Scientists are people and they will do anything to protect their prestige, standing and the accompanying perks. If revenue and teaching based publications were found to be quackery; it would destroy public trust which is thinning among a growing percentage in no uncertain measure. Certain scientists would be considered the same as preachers in a pulpit demanding your unquestioning faith. Here, the investigative research article writer must tread every so cautiously. A modern societal symptom is the speed to blurt and shake a fist without weighing carefully what the proposed evidence is attempting to transmit. Scientific stated explanations based on formulas whose variables were periodically altered to so suit a false narrative. So called laws of science on shaky foundation. This statement in itself is not the exception; it is the growing modus operandi (latin: a particular way or method of doing something). As a famous physicist once replied to an amateur seeking an ethical scientific community for complex mathematical explanations. 'There isn't one. You have to do the homework yourself.' That group of enthusiasts delving ever deeper to comprehend and compare published papers is growing. Fortunately, within the scientific community there are growing number of bold scientists fully capable in debunking the attacks of their counterparts who parrot repeat that which they have not dissected at depth.

Some preached scientific facts demanding readdress.

The Sky Scholar. (YouTube) P. M. Robitaille, PHD.

Pierre-Marie Robitaille Debunks Professor Dave - The Sun.

Special Theory of Relativity Logical Inconsistencies.

The Black Hole Image - Data Fabrication Masterclass.

What are Black Holes Science or Science Fiction.

Energy Partition in the Sun - Liquid Metallic Hydrogen Model.

Nuclear Reactions in the Sun.

Spectroscopic Lines in the Solar Atmosphere.

Other scientists referenced in presentations for personal research.

Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wonder off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.” – Nikola Tesla.

Jon Solis, 2022.

CLIMATE-GATE DATA MANIPULATION & LIES

It took twenty-five years to convince millions around the world a pseudo-science story where the opposite of evidence was said to be true. This article does not approach the ‘toxic earth’ issue. That requires a dedicated piece, and yet it seems a near non issue amongst climate change fanaticism. Fast held belief, regardless of evidence, seem to fly in the face of reason or sanity. Often there is belief without question because we are told through the media by those claiming to be credible. Even when deception is exposed; the public informing media remains silent. Evidence disproving the insane stance is deliberately ignored. The persistence of the imprint of the delusion could further be a case due to its imprint on children at school. Debugging the garbage programme can take a short time or decades, and it has nothing to do with intelligence. The following revelations do not apply to the toxic issue; purely C02 and historical earth temperatures from core samples to modern comparative measures. What is the logical outcome of two major climate change goals? Reducing global temperatures and C02 to dangerously low levels would cause more droughts, extreme weather patterns and harm to all life on the planet. Climate change fanatics will harm the planet and its life, not save it.

12 Cimate Change Lies:

1. Global warming is bad: Which climates have the greatest diversity of life, fauna and best suited to sustainable life; polar regions or close to the equator?

2. Manmade CO2 is the cause of global warming: We are currently in one of dozens of warming periods that occur approximately ever thousand years, and our current one was not the warmest to date. Also CO2 levels are much lower than other periods when there was no man or modern industrialisation, and it was greener.

3. Global warning causes extreme weather: The last forty plus year hurricane graphs, NOA stats show a sexy year downtrend in tornados. Heat is not the cause of wind; temperature differences are. Warming would reduce temperatures, thus less dangerous freak weather. Global cooling is the problematic extreme weather bad guy.

4. Global warming causes droughts: Rain comes from water evaporation, condensation to rain clouds. It is cooling that will disrupt rainfall.

5. Current warmth is unusual: Most of earth’s history has been warmer than current temperatures.

6. Current CO2 levels are high: We have a historically lowest level of C02. Currently 400ppm, average over time is 1,600ppm, last record of abundant life, 4,000ppm.. If it drops to less than half current levels; there is great danger to life on earth.

7. Rate of warming is dangerous: Every day massive increases and decreases in temperature occur, a three degree rise over a hundred years would mean we would need to wait some thousand years or more to be near historical higher temperatures when there was abundant life on the earth. Migration is plausible for the duration of a UN alarmist high.

8. The science is settled: This anti-science. Apart from all the manipulated data and lies; in two decades they have been unable to explain the pause in warming discovered by satellite data. Data that does not fit the model is discarded for convenience.

9. There is a consensus: Throwing out contradictory data is fraud, not consensus. Independent studies showed they were unable to reproduce the claimed datas accuracy.

10. Science is done by consensus: The statement is contradictory. Consensus, like voting is about popularity and nothing to do with independent complete data analysis and verification.

11. Climate change is dangerous and should be stopped: Climate has been changing for over four billion years. There have been heatwaves, mini ice ages, ice ages. It is as nonsensical as saying, let’s have a war against climate. Without warming there would be very little life. Not enough rain and too many droughts.

12. Global warming makes the oceans more acidic: Oceans are alkaline. Making them more acidic is implausible. Increasing temperatures would force CO2 out of the water All the following people and organisation support the climate change dogma. Let us read what they have to say or what they believe.

‘Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.’ – Professor Maurice King.

‘The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man.’ – Club of Rome.

‘It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.’ - Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace.

‘The resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million but less than one billion.’ – Club of Rome, Goals for Mankind.

‘A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.’ – Ted Turner, founder of CNN and UN donor.

‘If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.’ – Prince Philip, patron of the WWF.

‘Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.’ – Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC.

‘I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.’ – John Davis, editor of Earth First.

‘In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.’ – Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution.

‘The commitment of the government to deal with the population issue is of course essential...There are many ways to make the death rate increase.’ – Robert McNamara, Secretary of Defence 1981.

It is of paramount importance to note, furthermore baffling, how green extremists seem to have narrow perspicacity when it comes to the agenda of organisations pushing the climate bandwagon. The evidence and data suggest, that aside from a group delusion Edward Bernays, Trotsky or Goebbels would be proud to accomplish; climate change fanaticism has the hallmarks of a death cult. Disease, war, via chemical means, such as damaging the air quality, affecting wether patterns through aerosols spraying with environmental organism ill affecting particulates. The application of these methods is documented and even admitted in the public domain as a climate saving measure. Even financial organisations have benefited from carbon trading games. Attacking small and midsized agriculture could be part of the agenda. It results in a rise in suicides, and countryside depopulation. Poverty and bad education have numerous spin offs for reducing life expectancy as well as indoctrinating impressionable children with ideologies bordering sducidal madness. Climate Change agendas fall in line with elite, powerful and or rich organisations that desire the Malthusian and eugenicist plan, which they advertise rather than hide.

Jon Solis, 2022.