Olorin

I do understand the historical concept of an aether as the frame where light does vector c, and the disproven idea that all other frames moving at vector v relative to this frame having light doing c - v, knocked on the head by the failure of the Michelson-Morley experiment, and purportedly leading to a constant c. I have just read the treatise on pseudo forces above, separating gravity from electric forces as the cause of space-time. I have been trying to go back to first principles to perhaps untangle a physics that seems to me to be getting lost in semantics, and stalled, despite this well intentioned reply. In terms of pseudo-forces as explained above, there may only be pseudo forces and thus only one force. The aether in these terms is a timeless-spaceless source of the potentials and dynamic disturbances which manifest, not only the "pseudo-force" called gravity, but time and space themselves, relative to the material body of a specific observer in a particular frame, inertial or non-inertial. This makes my "aether frame", so defined, completely unobservable otherwise, except as the substance and source of what is observed, which is manifestation, the firmament, the universe and all of its phenomena, all expressed in space-time terms and derive-able laws we call science. And so - Einstein has said that "the universe may not have an existence independent of the observer" which he also stated as "science cannot determine whether the senses are some kind of psychic phenomenon" (no doubt paraphrased from memory but definitely from his writings and lectures). Thus, before matter in space-time existed except as a possibility in the Mind from which reason manifests in nature, the creation of 2 oppositely charged particles formed the force between them which we call an electric field, and the dynamics that became the Universe as matter and energy perfectly conserved and finite, is what we perceive. Is it real or a dream? What is the difference? One is shared by all, the other personal, the substance the same, and possible the purpose also. Anciently, light and consciousness were considered synonymous. Yea or nay is ours to determine and called free will. But this seems also to have been the opinion of Albert Einstein, and the source of his passion, genius and unquestionable humanity.

No science fascinates me more than Special and General Relativity and the mind that produced them. Thanks for the reference. On this score I have posed a question critical to my views: "OTOH, electric and magnetic fields are not the be-all-end-all of what can be in space. This summary of the preamble in the same post is the source of my contention with opinions on what is and what is not "Mainstream". Since no reply seems forthcoming, I will reply to the question posed: "Of interest is the relation between the permeability constant u0 (mu subscript 0) and the permittivity constant e0 (epsilon subscript 0): u0 = 1/e0.c^2.........................................................................................(i) e0 is the constant used in the force law relating to electric charges: F = 4.pi. e0.q1.q2/r^2 which bears a striking similarity to" F = G.m1.m2/r^2 and to which, in desperation Einstein applied a "cosmological constant" to account for the expanding universe (knowing nothing of antimatter yet except for the positron) only to recount his idea as so ad hoc as to call it his greatest blunder. We have done worse since to the nth degree. Maxwell recognised that the speed of light was a factor in much of his work. You will note that it is a part of equation (i) above. The mathematics for this relation is staggering. But to attempt to find a similar relation for G: G = f(c, e0)..................................................................................................(ii) would, by comparison, turn a "Theoretical Scientist" into a basket case, if it were only based in the General Relativistic effects of shell-electrons, much less the possibility of the nuclear relativistic electrons as well. If the derivation were achieved none the less, it would quantitatively resolve this issue with current Mainstream thought. I will submit an excerpt deriving and explaining relation (i) from my pre-matriculation textbook unedited for consideration here. We will thereby also evaluate the possibility that everything from the most miniscule meson to the bigest boson are entirely unnecessary to explain a great deal of phenomena. If so we can give the Nobel Prize to George Lucas and begin to wonder how One Force can create time, space and what will doubtless become perceived as a Universal status quo. I do not have the mathematical skill to do the derivations, nor the funding to test the implications for consistency with observed phenomena. But since the year 1969, when I read the attached text, I have been following evolving scientific thought and also evolving my own ideas on the Universe." The request has been ignored but is critical to the understanding of gravity as a force not dissimilar to magnetism but from General, not Special Relativity considerations. The explanation of Magnetic forces and the derivation of relation (i) above is in the PDF. Can anyone produce the analogous derivation for relation (ii) likewise. A hoard of physics postulates will receive an acid test with its implications. Refer to the attached PDF for relation (i). Magnetism.pdf

Yet Einstein spent 8 year in Bern, Switzerland on long walks discussing Special Relativity with Emanuel Lasker, never to see eye to eye on the matter. Emanuel saw, and dodged the implication that space and time are relative to the observer (hence all phenomena, which are not derived therefrom?) by claiming that no vacuum exists in the universe in which light would have infinite speed (zero delay at a distance). https://www.chessmaniac.com/albert-einstein-and-chess/

Thanks for your interest and the content. The M features significantly in my solution, and may have had its interpretation changed among an intellectual elite to supply a concept foreign to "normal people" of the day, being originally used to "cross out" the place where overflow produced a zero and a carry to the next place in the representation. Thus misunderstood, M, a squiggle originally, may have been redeployed as the article describes in the middle ages. Further, the invention of our Hindu-Arabic numerals is historically coincident with the Fall of Rome, employing the concept of exponentiation. The Roman Numerals could have been more cleverly refined as our numerals today, continuing the slow evolution. Egyptians used patterns of 1 to 9 strokes as in tallying, and invented characters or hieroglyphs used likewise for further powers of 10 up to 10,000,000. This last number is the clue to what may have been the numerals of the learned elite. Compare the two equivalent representations below: 9,223,372,036,854,775, 808 IX CCXXIII CCCLXXII XXVI DCCCLIV DCCLXXV DCCCVIII To the untrained eye, this would have only ever appeared to be 7 distinct Roman Numerals. The M, as zero, would have rendered 1,000,000 as I M M. It would not be too surprising that this knowledge escaped the history pages. It may have been way over the heads of the general rank and file. It may have incited revolution and maintained as covert as the military secret that destroyed Troy. The male population of Troy were put to the sword because the Trojan Horse was set on fire to decoy the guard on the city gate. Without this the alarm would have been raised to thwart the Greek plan. Surely this tactic would have been considered beforehand as absolutely necessary for success, and may possibly be used again.

😡 No takers? I'll give it a day...and then present my SPECULATION on this subject. Why? Because someone may want to erect a monument and put a date on it in the year 4000 in Roman Numerals? No, there had do be a system that the Roman elite used simply to function. And believe it or no, evidence of such a system seems to survive in an unsuspected present day phenomenon. And it seems that SPECULATION is all that remains to resolve this matter of some interest (to other wackos like me).

So what do you suppose tweaked Einstein's curiosity concerning the non-Euclidean, non-Newtonian, etc. properties of light (or more generally, the propagation of disturbances in the electric field (aether for want of a more appropriate term)?

Roman Numerals present something of a mystery. While the Plebeians may have been too poor to have much use for numbers as large as 1000 or M by virtue of their poverty and limited technology, their system (excluding for the moment shorthand representations like IX for 10 - 1 = 9) is a descendant of the Egyptian system apparently without the shorthand convention, and with different characters. The beauty of it, though, was that Plebeians did not need schooling to count and learn some arithmetic tricks. The non-subtractive notation was a direct representation of results on an abacus. So how did the accountants of Patricians operate with such a limited system during the glory days of Rome? How was ordinance requisitioned by the builders of the Colosseum? How did Generals count and supply their soldiers, and compare the strength of their armies with those they wished to conquer? We cannot avoid these questions and continue the myth that there was no larger number than 3999 = MMMCMXCIX available to them. Is an answer to this known in any quarter, I wonder? Is our history deficient with regard to this small matter?

I did read it somewhere that Einstein informed Hubble about the Universal expansion, when I first investigated Hubble and his Theory on the net. As a controversial matter however, like a chess player considering all moves, it may yet have occurred to him as a possibility leading to his conjecture. I guess we will never know. The Michelson-Morley experiment is often cited as the prompt. It may have gone even deeper, into the mystical considerations that he was not adverse to by all accounts. It is interesting to ask how "inspired" conjectures arise in the minds of Science's founding fathers, again like trying to see how a chess master has discovered a startling combination in a position long known. To learn to emulate these people must advance any fraternity. I will take your correction on board.

Sorry, I hadn't finished the thought, and have edited the post to correct this as you will see above. I was trying to explain what seems to have been the inspiration for Special Relativity (of which Newtonian mechanics is actually a special case or sufficient approximation with v << c) as taken from "the horses mouth", so to speak. It makes his insights more visible than the "relative to the observer" version usually cited.

This "static universe" may well be the Universal Status Quo idea called a SteadyState Theory at the time. https://arxiv.org/vc/arxiv/papers/1402/1402.0132v1.pdf This does not discount an expanding universe. Firstly, his Special Relativity Hypothesis is stated in "Ideas and Opinions" as "The speed of light is constant regardless of the speed of the source." (which is foul of Newtonian Mechanics) may have been inspired by the universal recession velocities. Otherwise, some "photons" would pass us at the speed of butterflies. He informed Hubble that the universe was expanding. But the antiproton, required to induce the possible existence of antimatter galactic clusters was not discovered until the year of or after his death (depending on sources). Lastly, he considered the universe finite unless its mass density become arbitrarily close to zero with distance. All these facts do not support his belief in a static universe. A universe that is recycling matter somehow and finite (a straight line is only the largest circle - hence Euclid's parallel postulate so stated), and thus fundamentally continuing eternally seems more consistent with his ideas and his failed quest. The Unified Field Theory left him frustrated, but may also have been a part of this quest. To be fair, ad hoc hypotheses creating designer materials and forces to make anomalies evaporate would not have blown his lab coat up, judging from his other contributions.

OTOH, electric and magnetic fields are not the be-all-end-all of what can be in space. This summary of the preamble in the same post is the source of my contention with opinions on what is and what is not "Mainstream". Since no reply seems forthcoming, I will reply to the question posed: "Of interest is the relation between the permeability constant u0 (mu subscript 0) and the permittivity constant e0 (epsilon subscript 0): u0 = 1/e0.c^2.........................................................................................(i) e0 is the constant used in the force law relating to electric charges: F = 4.pi. e0.q1.q2/r^2 which bears a striking similarity to" F = G.m1.m2/r^2 and to which, in desperation Einstein applied a "cosmological constant" to account for the expanding universe (knowing nothing of antimatter yet except for the positron) only to recount his idea as so ad hoc as to call it his greatest blunder. We have done worse since to the nth degree. Maxwell recognised that the speed of light was a factor in much of his work. You will note that it is a part of equation (i) above. The mathematics for this relation is staggering. But to attempt to find a similar relation for G: G = f(c, e0)..................................................................................................(ii) would, by comparison, turn a "Theoretical Scientist" into a basket case, if it were only based in the General Relativistic effects of shell-electrons, much less the possibility of the nuclear relativistic electrons as well. If the derivation were achieved none the less, it would quantitatively resolve this issue with current Mainstream thought. I will submit an excerpt deriving and explaining relation (i) from my pre-matriculation textbook unedited for consideration here. We will thereby also evaluate the possibility that everything from the most miniscule meson to the bigest boson are entirely unnecessary to explain a great deal of phenomena. If so we can give the Nobel Prize to George Lucas and begin to wonder how One Force can create time, space and what will doubtless become perceived as a Universal status quo. I do not have the mathematical skill to do the derivations, nor the funding to test the implications for consistency with observed phenomena. But since the year 1969, when I read the attached text, I have been following evolving scientific thought and also evolving my own ideas on the Universe. Magnetism.pdf

joigus said: "OTOH(?), electric and magnetic fields are not the be-all-end-all of what can be in space." Of interest is the relation between the permeability constant u0 (mu subscript 0) and the permittivity constant e0 (epsilon subscript 0): u0 = 1/(e0c^2) which I render u0 = 1/e0.c^2 attributing higher precedence to . than to /, to be clear. To establish common premises, do you understand the derivation of this relation?

I guess you do horoscopes. How much do you charge? Phi for All Chief Executive Offworlder Moderators 5862 20399 posts Location: CO, USA Report post Posted 6 hours ago ! Moderator Note Olorin, it's against our rules for you to assume your unevidenced, non-mainstream aether concept is a valid argument in the mainstream sections. Either open up a thread defending your idea in Speculations, or stop posting about it. You can't use these ideas in discussion until they're supported. "You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred!" -- Super Chicken "One of the key problems today is that politics is such a disgrace, good people don't go into government." -- Donald Trump Now you really do have my attention. What part of this post is not Mainstream? I am defining the Aether frame as the electric field that remains unmanifest until a potential difference is applied. That potential difference is caused by charged particles, when these are brought into manifestation by pair production, always in perfect balance and with zero sum charge creation. The pair production requires E = 2mc^2 = hf frequency gamma ray and a second mass for conservation likewise. The gamma ray may result from a charged particle oscillating at f, or in another inertial frame frame, moving in circular motion. In either case, acceleration of the moving charge is involved. Without acceleration, only relative velocity, only a magnetic field is created, the result of flux imbalance due to Special Relativistic considerations. With acceleration, General Relativistic considerations are involved again producing a resultant force which, were it likewise analysed, would have the properties of Gravitation rather than Magnetism. This we see gravitational lensing and other such phenomena, like stars around an eclipsed sun displaced. The Aether frame so defined remains unmanifest until disturbed, one way or another, by the mechanics of charged particles, creating the very properties of time and space to cause c = x/t to appear constant in every frame by accordingly causing the phenomena which we measure all things by, x & t, and even (dare I say it) m, which is defined by Newton's Third Law plus a standard, in terms of the individual time and space as created by the aether frame rate of propagation of electric field disturbances relative to the frame in question. In other words, George Lucas' "The Force" is none other than the electric field, which can only be detected by its effect on a charged particle placed in that field. Other than using the word "Aether" to illustrate this concept of space-time, it is fully defined in Mainstream terms, by any other name. I have simply tried to provide an intuitive concept of the nature of time and space as a thing created by electric forces acting on charged particles and otherwise non-existent. But if so, then we do have an anomaly in the case of uncharged particles unless they are either a form of the energy itself, or composed of balanced charged particles, or both. Otherwise the forces creating time and space (always relative to an observer) as outlined would have no effect on them. This is plainly true of the neutron, with its 10.3 minute half-life as essentially, like it or not, an unstable nucleus isotope that cannot hold an electron shell. As far as po' li'l me can see, this is nothing but Mainstream + logic. Would you consider that you might be playing a little rough?

C. Sagan said: "[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition". Just as the timing of a pendulum and its orbit is determined by Gravity, and differs on the moon, so is the timing and orbit of an electron determined by c, and differs in another frame. What is hidden is the aether frame of light itself, and every frame has its own time and space which creates its c. We do not know of what an electric field is composed, except that it is by the charged particles of which all matter and antimatter is created when the field is disturbed by accelerating charged particles in simple harmonic or circular motion at the necessary frequency.

You are welcome, and thank you for your's. You were very diligent likewise.

What is covertly known or suspected fact, for reasons of advantage or as dangerous to the uninitiated, we may not be aware of. Neither Mainstream Science nor Roman Catholicism publicly admit psychic phenomena as significant or righteous respectively (trance state or hypnotic clairvoyance, Ouija board communication with discarnates, symbolic dream transmissions and prophecies from a Universal Mind). The Edgar Cayce Readings consist of 86.5 MB (90,769,408 bytes) of text, taken down in shorthand and filed over a forty-year period. Their internal consistency on several levels of significance, as well as correlations with material and historical information, cannot be accounted for on Mainstream terms. Any dismissal as demonic on the "The Fifteen Anathemas Against Origen" at the Fifth Ecumenical Council 553 AD is also contradicted. https://silouanthompson.net/2019/09/anathemas-against-origen/ There are however no sinister, only helpful influences, advice and other information to be found in the text. Lastly, Einstein's revelations to the world, not as physics, but since worldwide acceptance was forced by the effective demonstration in 1945, are plainly preempted in many readings, particularly up to the time just prior to the time when fate deemed this knowledge should be made indelibly public. Information concerning Edgar Cayce, and the texts of all but secret readings given on Woodrow Wilson's request (concerning the Fourteen Point Plan and other such matters) may be acquired over the internet. https://www.edgarcayce.org/membership/are-membership/ I have written a powerful but non-AI "search engine" in Pascal to research these Readings, which must be assembled into one contiguous text file for the purpose, using #12 and null lines to partition the text 3 ways for searching. Multiple search items, word and strings both case-sensitive and insensitive, may be used. It may be cross referenced with other documents in appropriate format, in particular, "The Bible and Apocrypha" KJV. I am not at liberty to supply the individual Edgar Cayce Readings themselves, which are available from the link. The scripture cited at 5.04 MB (5,289,470 bytes), however, is public domain, and may be eMailed so formatted, and the code with a bogus extension like ".m4a" - I have also studied the "Book of Manifestations in The Light" (Book of the Dead), "The Upanishads", "The Bhagavat Gita", Patience Worth, hypnosis and so forth. Scriptures and true seers tell the same story. Religions and Sciences contradict internally and externally. Few Sciences are, in my opinion, free of suspect hypotheses. Strangest of all, Psychology will have nothing to do with the psyche (the soul and psychic phenomena, reference Carl Jung), and commenced the headlong plunge into strict materialism (as opposed to energyism) around 1900. Some must wonder how any number of switches can become self-aware or conscious, despite appearances.

1152 times faster! That's about as clear as I can fully understand, but I am grateful fro the rest, for which I do have some intuitive grasp. So much for coding. Concerning data storage, I have a glass prism containing the image of a Chinese Godlike figurine, etched as small fractures with incredible definition, each computer generated by focusing laser light to a small point. It has long been clear to me that that bits and bytes may may become available to the order of Avogadro's number as crystal lattices. Required would be the development of this kind of laser control, at specific frequency, with specific electrons in the lattice having two stable states that may be so manipulated. The World renowned psychic Edgar Cayce (1877-1945) gave past life readings for people who had incarnations in Poseidia, the last island of Atlantis to survive before their technology produced a pole-shift and ice-age 11.5 thousand years ago. He recounted that they had incredible crystals with powerful properties. These were eventually abused to their undoing, and acquiring the name "Terrible Crystals" as a result. He predicted the return of these advanced souls, and the return of their progressive and aggressive influence and technologies, from a time of high energies. Do you have any knowledge of such developments in computer memory capacity? It appears the more a plausible assumption considering the vast data resources available on the internet, and the "cloud". How are these extremes possible? 10 TB is the best I'm using - nothing like the order 10^23, Jupiter in rice grains. There would also need to be a plethora of addressing bits.

So AI is now defined as "learning software"? Okay, I'm still coding with (Free) Pascal, and almost as extinct. Your response is interesting to say the least. Can you clarify for me whether 8 cores now has sufficiently increased frequency to match 200 cores in 1996, please.

The relevance of the colours requires the legend, purchase the map. The theory was presented by James Maxlow (PhD) in Nexus as two articles in Apr-May & Jun-Jul 2010. The second issue confessed to the problems of Jurassic Creatures needing to be marine animals on the smaller Earth, and no theory on the cause of expansion. By then I had researched both issues, and the elements of my conclusions are presented in "The Anomalous Moon", and the reply to the Pangaea Question. By then I had read Stephen Gould's "The Book of Life" three times to confirm my inductive conclusions on the matter. This book was long out of print, but the publicity given to it has brought it back into print. My knowledge of thermite welding, Al + Fe2O3 -> Fe + Al2O3 + 3000 degrees centigrade was enough to suspect that Uranium is alloyed into the Earth's core, if for no other reason, because all oxygen is tied up largely as Aluminosilicate slag in the lithosphere and mantle to elements in far greater abundance. Half of this Uranium since solidification of the planet survives today. The Earth's increased radius, and crust long thickened under a global briny sea, eventually upset the equilibrium between heat generated and that lost to space. As mentioned before, rifting would have created the first oceans, and thereby the first oxygenated fresh water resources, and thus eventually - the Cambrian Explosion 540 MYA. You should have enough references and and researchable facts here to follow Maxlow's research, and mine, and "see the relevance". But of course, there are none so blind as those blinded by their own smugness, and they are myriad. We may rest assured that those who don't accept TRUTH as a friend will face it as a conqueror, and those who make themselves the author of truth are eventually shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods.

Turning a blind eye and a deaf ear was never science! READ my post carefully and reference the UNESCO map provided for what good it can do. If you are more than some verbal jouster, buy the complete map from UNESCO. As you will see, this IS EVIDENCE, not BS. And if you have similarly researched the opinions that are a part of your social environment out of interest in consistency, correlate this information with a document that Albert Einstein, Thomas Jefferson and Woodrow Wilson held true and sacred, specifically this part, relative to Earth Expansion Tectonics, Zephaniah Chapter 3, KJV. US Congress destroyed Woodrow Wilson and derailed The League of Nations, but Woodrow's prophecy "If you do not ratify the League of Nations (together with England, France and Italy) and honour the Fourteen Point Plan, you WILL have another World War in a generation. It almost happened a second time over the price of sugar. His effort was partially reinstated in Einstein's efforts toward The United Nations, and his appeal to Russian Scientists (refer to "Ideas and Opinions" for the replies and weep).

Less nonsense than yours!

The Moon is generating no heat, it is still cooling. Mars has extinct volcanoes. At half the size, the Moon has none.

There are about 5000 moons discovered in our solar system since probes have returned data on our planets. Of These, there are only 45 which have synchronous rotation. Earth's moon is one of these, and tidal drag is the explanation. While my mathematics is insufficient to perform such calculations, it seems unlikely with such a preponderance of non-synchronous moons unless both oceans are unnecessary and these moons have all been recently captured. This last is a possibility because there was a huge increase in meteor strikes during the Ordovician Period which may have been coincident with the creation of the asteroid belt. In that case many of these 5000 moons may date from that time 490 MYA, while the Earth;s oldest rocks formed 4600 MYA. But there is much reason to suspect that the current Mainstream account of the Moon's creation cannot hold. A planet Theia and the Earth are believed to have collided and the current Earth and Moon remained when the smoke cleared. However, the Moon has no iron core, and no evidence of tectonic activity ever, while Mars has an extinct volcano 20 miles high, and is only twice the size of the moon. The Earth, unlike Mars, still has tectonic activity, but the Martian activity has long ceased. Evidence of the UNESCO Geological Map of The World has furthermore provided evidence that, in the last 180 MY that Earth has doubled its radius. It would seem that the one third smaller size of Mars has allowed radioactively generated heat to escape faster than created, while the reverse seems the case for Earth, causing expansion to begin when the crust became too thick. That alloyed uranium in the core is responsible for the heating of the core material seems to be supported by the fact that the Moon, with no iron core at all has no volcanic or other tectonic activity, as supported by seismic tests. This seems to indicate that this anomalous body has been hurled into space drawn entirely from the mantle. Earth expansion and rifting would have separated part of the crust following two meridians, due to pressure and spin. I suspect that such a process is the reason for the synchronous rotation. The Permian Extinction, the greatest ever, wiped out 95% of species, and none of 5 theories is without anomalies. It followed a series of ice ages, and was preceded by massive lava flows and volcanic explosions. Much evidence supports these conjectures. Aside from the Moon lacking an iron core, the far side has a crust as thick as our continental crust, about 20 miles, while the near side has the thin crust typical of the ocean crust of about 5 miles. The near side meteor strikes have flooded with lava and formed mares (meaning seas) while the far side has deep craters and looks unlike the moon we see. The most compelling evidence is that Moon rock returned to the Earth proved to contain two isotopes of Titanium in the same proportions as these exist on Earth, to the limit of measurement. Any two bodies throughout the solar system do not exhibit this property unless from the same source (like the asteroids). Closer to the Sun, heavier elements and isotopes are retained. It seems likely that these rifts began 540 MYA and sparked the Cambrian Explosion. Until then, the world was covered by a worldwide sea too saline for all life except bacteria. Higher life forms require oxygen to live, which supersaturated briny water cannot hold. Even plants must have oxygen at night. With the first rifting, the first ocean was created, dry land appeared again, and fresh water lakes and swamps appeared. Most early evolutions extant today are fresh water plants and animals, and it would be a while before the oceans became diluted enough to contain much oxygen. Even so, many marine creatures were air breathers. But the far side of the Moon has the missing piece of the jigsawed planet with half the present radius.

Covid 19, less sunspot activity, increased environmental awareness. Carbon Monoxide levels may well correlate since nothing man made would be more of an influence. But have you an explanation why the hole is in the SOUTH, rather than in the NORTH? The solar wind blasts out to the Ord belt, and hydrogen condenses as ice out there, so the south deflected protons, which are nascent ionised hydrogen atoms at high speed = temperature would even trump the damage done by airliners. I have answered the question asked, "Why is it in the South?" Have you anything better to offer?

The Geological Map of The World (GMoTW) by UNESCO (beware of misleading namesakes) is all the evidence you need. It cost me 30 euro 10 years ago. As evidence it is incontrovertible. Ocean basalt is 5 miles thick. Continents are 20 miles thick. The Pacific mid-ocean ridge follows the west coast of the Americas, becomes the gulf of California, then believe it or not, the San Andreas Fault, to return as a mid-ocean ridge in the north, plainly depicted by the GMoTW. When you obtain the GMoTW the Indian Ocean ridge will be seen to have created the Red Sea, the Dead Sea & Jordon Valley, and the Mediteranean with Etna a result of the rifting. If you do not acquire the evidence, that is beyond my control. To claim that the Pacific rift is causing subduction under Indonesia you must be ready for the Booby Hatch. Has Mainstream changed in the past? By what logic is it prevented from changing in the future? Are we implying that we have reached scientific perfection? Particularly when current Mainstream fails to supply certain answers that may be supplied by the evidence of SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH from UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, SCIENTIFIC and Cultural Organisation.