3 Scientific Theories You've Never Heard Of

Is light a wave or a particle? What if it's neither?  How was the Earth actually formed?  What if oil isn't a fossil fuel?

Nowadays it seems like most "Scientists" coming out of academia are all in agreement: the Mainstream has it all figured out.  Based on predictions and arguments from Authority, any attempt to question the established models is ridiculed into oblivion.  However, Science is about explaining events rationally, not making predictions about the future.  A stone aged Priest could have predicted an eclipse... that does not mean he understood the physical mechanisms underlying the process!

Have you ever wondered if the established theories are still Ptolemaic and irrational?  Ptolemy could predict the positions of planets but he did so with an irrational system.
Once one grasps the difference between a prediction and an explanation, one can see the shortcomings and irrational statements of some established "theories" in science.



In this article I will provide 3 explanatory Theories that are not accepted by the Mathematical establishment.  This is because they offer explanations, instead of equations or predictions.  Are they better than what the establishment has to offer? You be the judge.

Thread Theory

 

Illustrating the Hydrogen Atom

The first Theory, or explanation, I will explain in this article is the Thread Theory of Bill Gaede.  Like all theories, this started with a Hypothesis.  Hypotheses are observer-free assumptions made in order to explain a particular phenomenon of reality.

Gaede began by wanting to explain some of the most mystical behaviors of light and what he found was an elegant explanation, invoking only a single object: The Electromagnetic Rope.  The Rope consists of an Electric thread and a Magnetic thread wound around each other in a DNA-like configuration.  The Rope binds any two atoms in the Universe because all atoms are, in fact, made of the Rope.

Q: Why does light travel so fast?
A: It is the torsion signal along a rope.

Q: Why does travel rectilinearly, but exhibits a wave like pattern? And why does the signal travel both ways simultaneously?
A: Light is the twisting of the EM rope.

Q: Why does light speed c = f λ remain constant?
A: The more links you fit in a given length of rope, the shorter the links become.

The Rope Hypothesis also works to explain gravity, magnetism, and atoms without reifying concepts like field, force, and charge into physical objects the way Mathematical Physics does.  This astounding feat of Science ought to be recognized.  Unfortunately, most current practicing "Scientists" are extremely invested in their "Particle Accelerators" and "Quantum" experiments, so they reject any attempt at a 'classical' solution to their problems.  If there are no discrete particles, like the Rope Hypothesis suggests, then what have they been doing all this time in their state-of-the-art labs?

Wolynski's Stellar Metamorphosis Theory

 The Stellar Metamorphosis (SM) is an explanation for how planets form, and is yet another Theory rejected by the mainstream for a number of reasons.  First and foremost, SM is requires a much older Universe.  New Aged Creationists who believe in the Big Bang reject this vehemently the same way the old Christian Creationists rejected fossils on the basis of Earth being 6,000 years old.  But if we toss out our biases then we can actually explain some phenomena rationally.  For instance:

Q: Why do planets frequently spin opposite to the spin of their stars?
A: Roaming planets are adopted by other stars when they cross paths.

Q: Why are planets so round?
A: Planets are the solid remnants of old dead stars.

A cross section of the Earth

A cross section of a very evolved star

Q: Why are planets so distinctly differentiated with heavy iron cores?
A: Stars create different layers of atoms with immense pressures.

Q: How are diamonds formed in high and low portions of the Earth's crust, in places where there has never been volcanic activity?
A: Diamonds were produced as the Star cooled into a black dwarf.

Q: Why are most planets roaming on their own without a 'solar system'?
A: Dead stars are leftover as planets.

Q: Why do some planets have active cores and others do not?
A: Some planets are older than others.

Q: Why do some planets of the same solar system have vastly different chemical compositions, even though the basic differentiated form remains the same?
A: Stars of different sizes produce different chemicals.

Q: Why do some planets have very large moons?
A: They were once multi-star systems.

The one theory that can explain all of these pertinent questions is the SM Theory.  As it turns out, the Earth is an old dying star.  A "black dwarf", one might say; and the moon is our counterpart is what used to be a binary star system.   Solar systems are formed when large active stars adopt older, roaming black dwarfs like the Earth.

The prevailing Theory which states that our solar system as a whole formed out of one large gas cloud is irrational because it cannot explain the phenomena listed above.  There is no reason why planets formed of the same cloud would have vastly different chemical compositions or why the rotation of some planets is opposite to others in solar systems.  Most fundamentally, it is difficult to imagine how gravity could produce pressures sufficient for shaping the Earth into a sphere, or the Earth has such a large natural satellite. With SM Theory we can tie all the questions together with one elegant answer.

Theory of Abiotic Petroleum

 It seems almost too good to be true.  However, it seems that the fossil fuel Theory doesn't have a leg to stand on under close inspection.  In a paper titled, "The genesis of hydrocarbons and the origin of petroleum" it is explained how natural heat, pressure, and the right ingredients configure petroleum and other heavier hydrocarbon chains:

Application of pressures to 50 kbar and temperatures to 1,500°C upon solid (and obviously abiotic) CaCO₃ and FeO wet with triple-distilled water, all in the absence of any initial hydrocarbon or biotic molecules, evolves the suite of petroleum fluids: methane, ethane, propane, butane, pentane, hexane, branched isomers of those compounds, and the lightest of the n-alkene series.

But that's not all. It's not just possible to create oil from lighter, natural carbon molecules in the earth, but it is very unlikely for detritus to create petroleum in vast quantities.

"[N]o biochemical investigation has ever observed a molecule of any hydrocarbon heavier than methane resulting from the decomposition of biological detritus. After a meal of, e.g., Boston baked beans, one does experience biogenic methane, but not biogenic octane."  [Source]

 As it turns out, unless the fossils are miraculously sinking to abyssal depths (more than twice as far as they have ever been found) there simply is not enough pressure to spontaneously produce the hydrocarbon chains we know as petroleum.

"Statistical thermodynamic analysis has established clearly that hydrocarbon
molecules which comprise petroleum require very high pressures for their
spontaneous formation, comparable to the pressures required for the same of
diamond. In that sense, hydrocarbon molecules are the high-pressure
polymorphs of the reduced carbon system as is diamond of elemental carbon.
Any notion which might suggest that hydrocarbon molecules spontaneously
evolve in the regimes of temperature and pressure characterized by the
near-surface of the Earth, which are the regimes of methane creation and
hydrocarbon destruction, does not even deserve consideration."  [Source]

This incredible information thoroughly debunks the notion of peak oil, "fueling" the question: "Why don't more people understand this?" Well, most importantly, it has been thrown out on the basis that it has no predictive capabilities.

But it also turns out that oil mogul John D. Rockefeller might have a whole lot to do with it.  He understood that all he had to do was convince people that oil was an extremely scarce resource.  By pushing a definition of "organic" as any molecule with Carbon, Hydrogen, and Oxygen,  he was able to lump Organisms and "Organic" matter into the same category.  After that, it wasn't much of a stretch to explain petroleum as a by-product of detritus.

Here is an interview documenting Rockefeller's history in oil and how he influenced the term organic in his favor: http://anticorruptionsociety.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/rense_landau_081810.mp3

As well as a youtube video called The Origins of Oil Falsely Defined in 1892: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdSjyvIHVLw

Thank you for reading and I hope to hear from you in the comments section below.