MrGamma

I think they have drawn the conclusion from ancient petroglyph's and stories about the Anunnaki. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anunnaki The ancient artifacts certainly seem real. However the interpretations are fairly wild. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zecharia_Sitchin He has been met with a great deal of skepticism. Skepticism does not make something inaccurate. Nor does it lend creedence to it. How exactly would you prove this concept? I guess your going to have to wait for more evidence. Otherwise you will trade your scientific beliefs for religious ones. ( It's not like everybody is playing on facts alone these days anyways ) IN other words... I humored the concept. And I was turned off of it when they began to relate double helix trimmings on ancient stonework to DNA. That alone is a very very big leap of faith to draw a conclusion from. Too far of a leap for my liking. ( and I am willing to take leaps )

Does anybody know anything about these? http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2007/11dec_themis.htm Apparently "Magnetic Ropes" are said to connect the Sun to the Earth. I am unsure if this is similar to what happened with the Nasa Polar program. They reported 43,000 ice/methane comets pummeling the earth daily back in the late nineties but it turned out to be static noise. Are these magnetic ropes for real? Or imagined?

I realize that. I have nothing to go on but to the source. The new guy in charge is a former commodore and holds three PHD's. http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/pyramids_of_egypt/nabil_swelim.php Even the projects harshest critique recognizes his authority. http://irna.lautre.net/Some-thoughts-about-Dr-Nabil.html I am now trying to understand the arguments which some of it's supporters are bringing up. I am particularly interested in this claim 2008. (did not come directly from Dr. Nabil) "Prof. Muhamed Pasic of University of Zenica (Bosnia) is running the research. He claimed that the top of the sandstone at the Moon pyramid is harder than the rest of it. He told that to our guests from Egypt in September. However, at the same time, Civil Institute of Tuzla performed the test on the same sandstone plates concluding that material is extra hard, much harder than sandstone found nearby." This is Dr.Nabil's report from 2007. http://www.bosnian-pyramid.com/downloads/newreports2008/DrSwelimReportFebruary2008.pdf This is what he said at a press conference. "We have the greatest pyramid in the world, here. Now we have to understand it" http://www.icbp.ba/index.php/component/option,com_seyret/Itemid,26/task,videodirectlink/id,9/

Agreed... I can understand this. It would seem there are emotions which can obfuscate and otherwise hurt the scientific process. I understand the whole concept of pyramid-mania... I do however have to ask myself that if this were discovered in the US if it would have been met with as much skepticism or if it would have been welcomed opened armed. Imo... every theory has merit and only rational explanations should ever take the spotlight. International media seems to hold this principle in high regard. If in fact there are pyramids there. This is a great example of how of the internet community at large can be irresponsible when attempting to discredit theories purely based on speculations and arm chair analysis. You have every right to be. I however feel that some have made it their life mission to discredit and otherwise thwart the scientific process. I think we have all fallen subject to this. There is still much to be unanswered. There may be no pyramids and there might be pyramids. This is the stance which every critical analysis should have taken in my opinion. Positives and Negatives. Too much of this entire story has been met with heavy biased attitudes and the last two years of evidence is all over the web. Only recently have I found 1 single non-baised (non-anti-pyramid but rather scientific) website which I would consider scientific outside of the dig site organization themselves. http://omerbashich.blogspot.com/ ADDITION: So I have finally decided to go and check out their side of the story. I have found three interesting claims of evidence ( without resorting to images ) and I am curious if anyone can vouch for the reasoning behind the conclusions. 1. There are no natural drainage paths down two sides of the pyramid hill. Suggesting there are "hollows" in the hill. 2. The sandstone on top of the hill is significantly harder than the softer sandstone towards the bottom. Logically this is supposed to suggest that it was quarried. In nature the sandstone is soft/porous on top and and gets harder the deeper you go. 3. Some conglomerates are water resistant. The water will bead at the surface and it will not absorb into the rock while other conglomerates in the very near vicinity will absorb the water. I am not sure if this is meant to suggest that it was man made due to nature being incapable of producing such a material or if it to suggest different conglomerates where man made to serve different purposes. 4. There are preliminary claims of Gamma Radiation Spectra being used to identify the natural location of stone blocks versus a blocks which have been moved from their original location. The blocks have been identified as being moved. How does one do this with Gamma Radiation? ( Note: I do no have papers yet to back these claims but welcome any criticisms regarding these found speculations )

Yes... I see where your coming from. Right now the conclusion appears to be that they are man made structure from what I know. So the conclusion is to dig further. As to the actual fact that they are pyramids. I am not a pyramid expert. What I used to dismiss as pseudo-science I am now beginning to re-evaluate. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1024779.stm If in fact this person who discovered them is correct. I may need to re-evaluate the legitimacy of the methods he used to discover and validate them in his own mind. Right now... I am more concerned about what the geo-physicists and archaeologists are saying as they are more established, with better credentials and far outrank the one who made the claim originally. In any event... it is far from conclusive... it is only perhaps the beginning. I am just a little upset that 2 years ago the enormous amount of scrutiny may have in fact made this project conclusive when it wasn't. http://www.google.com/trends?q=bosnian+pyramids (sometimes google kicks out with thier stats. This is by no means accurate to my knowledge ) I don't think that it's fair to dismiss archeology/geology as factoids. Speculation is where everyone begins. It's the first step towards learning more.

I agree... if it were conclusive there would b no reason to continue the dig correct? If you want reports from some of these people you can find them here. http://www.icbp.ba/index.php/Reports/Reports/ From what I have gathered thus far. The president of the organization has come out of retirement and has a distinguished history. This gentleman however seems to have the most impressive credentials I have seen belonging to anyone of the organization. http://www.bosnian-pyramid.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=10717

This is the list of people... http://www.icbp.ba/index.php/Presidency.html Notice how the guy who founded the pyramids got bumped to the bottom of the list?

Yes... I've been following it since 2006... Their was a time when I was pretty convinced it was some crazy guy who was seeing things. Now they have PHD's confirming the work. I sort of have to take what they say at face value. People seem to have changed thier tune a little bit now that the summer has ended and they have turned up more stuff. Like that article says... there is enough stuff there to prove it is man made ( or it is enough for to go on to connect the structures with the romans ). Now they are trying to figure out who made it. So... now I'm back to square one thinking it's some crazy guy who has found roman settlements. But... if I am to take what is being reported to be true. Then I would be convinced that a pyramid complex is there. In any event... here is a bitter, angry and extremely skeptical person. Compare how they talk about the dig site compared to the person who gives the roman settlement theory. http://irna.lautre.net/ I don't think arguments like these hold any weight. A website devoted to debunking the whole theory and nothing but makes me think... that they think... the Bosnian Pyramids are a hoax conspiracy. In any event... it's wait and see... jmo...

I am not against listening to what you have to say. If you have any links to material which presents the argument it would be of interest.

I don't think it's hoax. I mean... that is rather paranoid thinking. Like subscribing to a conspiracy theory. I've come to accept that the majority of websites which are critiques of the pyramids are in fact pseudo cranks themselves. If anything... Perhaps it's overambitious people who have misinterpreted it wrong. This is an interesting alternative theory regarding the pyramids being an old roman fortification of sorts. http://omerbashich.blogspot.com/ I chopped this still frame out of a video. Unfortunately the video came from Youtube and I have no idea if it is from the pyramid site or from a location elsewhere.

Maybe... I am looking for the definitive answer and I believe it would come from Geodesy. But not all Geodesy's are the same. There is the ICRF ( International Celestial Reference Frame ) which is what I would consider essential ( from a purely logical and laymans perspective ) to determining a fixed co-ordinate system which is not a product of the object which is being measured itself. There is the ITRF ( International Terrestrial Reference Frame ) which is the fixed point at which the earth is located. ITRF can be derived from the ICRF but some will derive the ITRF from the TRS which is the terrestrial reference system. It uses fixed points on the earth itself to derive a local co-ordinate system for the earth relative to itself. Again... from a purely laymans point of view I suspect this is scalar logic but for earth bound critical applications essential. For measuring a possible expansion not such a good idea... http://itrf.ensg.ign.fr/trs_trf.php From the definition it says... "A Terrestrial Reference System (TRS) is a spatial reference system co-rotating with the Earth in its diurnal motion in space. In such a system, positions of points anchored on the Earth solid surface have coordinates which undergo only small variations with time, due to geophysical effects (tectonic or tidal deformations)." ... "Such a TRF is said to be a realization of the TRS." So... My guess would be that someone who published a paper using the ITRF in combination with the ICRF avoiding the possibility of deriving any data from a TRS might have the answer. "International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service" http://hpiers.obspm.fr/icrs-pc/ I am open to criticisms regarding this conclusion. Frame Dragging might have an effect but I do not know enough about it and from what little I have read the effect would be minimal.

I've been waiting to hear more about this conference regarding the Bosnian Pyramids. This article lists the following participants in the The First International Scientific Conference on the Bosnian Pyramids. http://www.philipcoppens.com/nap_icbp.html I followed it in from this website... http://www.bosnianpyramid.com/index_Files/News.html It mentions that the following people have validated the dig site and all members at the conference were in agreeance that the dig should be continued. "The conference was opened in the presence of the vice-president of the Federation Spomenka Micic, the minister for tourism of the federal government Nevenko Herceg, the Ambassador of AR Egypt Akhmed Khatab, as well as other dignitaries. On August 29, 2008, these were the conclusions the scientific conference reached. The Committee for Recommendation consisted of: - dr. Nabil Swelim, Egyptologists and archaeologist, President of the ICBP 2008 - dr. Oleg Khavroshkin, geophysicist, Chairman of the ICBP Scientific Committee - dr. Alaa Shaheen, archaeologist, Dean of the Faculty of Archaeology at the Cairo University - dr. Hassan El-Saady, historian, vice-dean of the Faculty of Arts at the Alexandria University - dr. Anna Pazdur, physician, Lab for the radiocarbon dating, Silesian University, Gliwice, Poland - dr. Mona Haggag, archaeologist, Secretary of the Archaeological Society of Alexandria, Egypt - dr. Ivan Šimatovic, President of the Organizational Committee, Croatia - dr. Mostafa El-Abbadi, historian, Founder of the modern Library in Alexandria (Bibliotheca Alexandrina), Egypt - Chris Norman, planner, Edinburgh, Great Britain - Dr. Mohamed Ibrahim Aly, Egyptologist and archaeologist, Faculty of Art at the University Ein-Shams, Cairo - Semir Osmanagic, Founder of the “Bosnian Pyramid of the Sun” Foundation and Vice-President of the ICBP 2008. All prepared the Draft of Recommendations on August 28, which was approved by all participants on August 29 at the plenary session." Additionally the article closes on this note... "That the pyramids might be an unknown dimension to the Vinca culture is a “cautious” approach, and, in fact, the conclusions of carbon dating of a piece of wood recovered from the Ravne tunnels were presented by Andrew Lawler and Anna Pazdur. Though they noted that it was a unique artefact (radio carbon dates preferentially being done over a range of artefacts, not just one, so that a range of dates is arrived at), the conclusion was that the piece of wood was 34,000 years old – which could, in theory, be the date when these pyramids were created. If true (and only further digging will tell), then the Bosnian Valley of the Pyramids will not merely change a paradigm, but completely shatter it. To be continued, in 2010." I am interested in your criticisms...

Sir... I am not suggesting the current theory of water erosion is bunk. I am raising awareness to the... Rift like cracks Horst Graben patterns Hundreds upon thousands of fault lines ( old and new ) Volcanoes and the uneven water table levels which are an inexplainable reality should water erosion be the sole method of the Canyon's formation. The current theory holds truth. But there is an underlying mechanism which cannot be ignored. If you will allow me to elaborate on the potential for earth quake activity in this region using old fault lines as evidence for pre modern scientific tectonic activity and the current number of recorded earthquakes within a 30 year time span. ( 9860 earthquakes / 30 years ) x 17 million years = 5.58733333 × 109 earthquakes. ( rough estimate )

Sir... I do not doubt that the Grand Canyon was at one point under water. The fossil record trapped in the sedimentary layers is evidence of this. The Kaibab Limestone being the youngest of the sedimentary layers contains brachiopods, coral, mollusks, sea lilies, worms and fish teeth fossils. The Grand Canyon does share features with rift systems. Volcanism, Horst Grabens and Faults. I would like to point out that the depth of the rift is irrelevant to whether or not tectonic forces and faults have created divergent boundaries. The Great African Rift. Ranges in elevation from c.1,300 ft (395 m) below sea level (the Dead Sea) to c.6,000 ft (1,830 m) above sea level in S Kenya. The Grand Canyon South Rim (about 7000 feet above sea level) North Rim (about 8000 feet above sea level) Inner Gorge (about 2000 feet above sea level) Additionally they share approximately the same crustal thickness of 30km for the most part. And on average the depth of the Grand Canyon is about 1600 meters while the African Rift includes some of the deepest lakes in the world (up to 1,470 meters deep at Lake Tanganyika). I do not see where you have made the connection between rift systems having to be "shallower". If you could please explain this in detail I would be more inclined to accept your reasoning. In any event, I am not blind to the fact that water table levels have etched themselves in the side of the canyon walls and produced some levels of erosion. I am only suggesting that the expanse of the canyon and the complex network of cracks which co-incide with fault lines make the Grand Canyon a rift system first and a drainage system second.

Yes... I have looked into the erosion aspect of this as well. "Age and Evolution of the Grand Canyon Revealed by U-Pb Dating of Water Table-Type Speleothems" http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/319/5868/1377 This particular study says, "Samples in the western Grand Canyon yielded apparent water table decline rates of 55 to 123 meters per million years over the past 17 million years" "in contrast to eastern Grand Canyon samples that yielded much faster rates (166 to 411 meters per million years)" The argument for a certain type of acid water eroding the rock faster would have to also support a different type of rock in the Western Canyon vs the East Canyon or at the very least a mechanism capable of sustaining different erosion rates over a 17 million year period. Perhaps the water table levels are un-even due to a rift system which tore the land apart beginning at the East End. Rather than the water eroding the different ends of the canyon at different rates. Perhaps the land rifted apart at different rate. If you will allow me to speculate and provide a visual comparison to how a rift system might split the land and drop water table levels at different rates I offer this. "Taiwan's 'Grand Canyon' — a creation of the 921 Earthquake" http://www.chinapost.com.tw/travel/taiwan%20central/taichung/2008/01/24/140421/Taiwan's-'Grand.htm

I have studied the Grand Canyon a little bit and throughout my research many people referenced the creation of the canyon to have formed primarily via river erosion. While I do not doubt that a river has eroded the walls of the canyon I do not believe it is responsible for it's great expanse. Searching the USGS earthquake database I found the following information regarding the total amount of earthquakes having been recorded since the seventies. The grand canyon has by far the greatest ocurrances of earthquakes which suggests it has the greatest potential for tectonic movement. The Grand Canyon 36.3N -113W 300km radius 936 quakes 500km radius 9860 quakes Red Rock Canyon Alberta 51.8N -115.3W 300km radius 82 quakes 500km radius 334 quakes Bryce Canyon 52.1 -115.3 300km radius 77 quakes 500km radius 242 quakes Black Canyon 37.5 -112.4 300km radius 733 quakes 500km radius 4013 quakes Kings Canyon 34.4 -106.8 300km radius 117 quakes 500km radius 388 quakes Nahanni Four Canyons 62.3 -125.2 300km radius 218 quakes 500km radius 269 quakes These arrows help illustrate the regions of the canyon which are rifting apart and thus cracking at the seams. Using a map available for download from the USGS... http://pubs.usgs.gov/imap/i-2688/ I have added arrows along a major fault line which match up with some of the cracks. Additionally this image illustrates a horst graben pattern I am interested in your criticisms.

The first thing you have to understand is the Terrestrial Reference frame which is used to calibrate the position of the earth in the universe. Some people calibrate the position relative to the stars and some will attempt to calibrate the system to a fixed point at the center of the earth for other reasons. I have only started to learn about frame dragging and gravitomagnetism but I do believe it can effect calibration as well if the prediction of it's effect is true. It is a relativity prediction. As far as I know the Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI) system is the main satellites system to which all other GPS and other satellites services are calibrated to. As for Geologists... for the most part they take measurement relative from one station to the next and adjust for the curvature of the earth using Eulerian pole. Nasa JPL has GPS data which is accessible. http://sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov/mbh/series.html I trust this info first and foremost but I do understand that many geologists draw conclusions which are in conflict as to what this data set says. It is most likely due to relative vs absolute positioning and measurements, I am not sure. People also argue that Gravimeter data has effectively been used to measure the size of the earth but they are spot measurements which often have to deal with atmospheric effects and natural uplift. Post Glacial rebound is another phenominon caused by the recession of the 2-4 km ice sheet from the 30-40km thick upper continental crust 10,000 years ago. Something to consider. This article may upset some as it has already been suggested as glacial melt and mentioning it here might suggest that it's some sort of proof when it is not. In any event the gravity bulge is something to consider when examining the dynamics of earth. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/08/0807_020807_earthgirth.html Again... JPL has nice gravity maps. http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/2003/103.cfm Paleo-Magnetism is essentially which turned the paradigm back in the seventies. Here is the paper which refuted it. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v271/n5643/abs/271316a0.html http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=16287341 From the same author recently. The GAD is the substructure system which all paleo-magnetic measurements are made. Additionally there are paleo-tide studies which if I am not mistaken have been used for gravitational constants proof. More Paleo Papers and Info. http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2005AM/finalprogram/abstract_97425.htm http://geomag.usgs.gov/movies/ James Maxlow Geologist PHD... has Paleo-Radius models calibrated to a small earth on display in the Geological Museum of the Polish Geological Institute. He seems to have done work with Paleo-Magnetism. http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/launchpad/6520/QUANTITATIVE-MODELING.html As for mechanisms. Pair production has been reproduced in the lab and it is recognized as a matter generation mechanism which could be occurring elsewhere in nature. ( I do not have the knowledge regarding particle physics to understand this in full ). Something like two high energy photons are capable of creating a Proton and Anti-Proton result. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003hep.ex....6017L Another Person to watch is Frank Wilczek who seems to have theories regarding the origins of mass. He is a Nobel laureate and he has said his theories will be tested at the LHC... http://www.frankwilczek.com/Wilczek_Easy_Pieces/342_Origin_of_Mass.pdf Someone else to watch is... J. Marvin Herndon PHD Nuclear Physicist who has theorized fission processes happening at the earths core. He has geology theories as well regarding the expansion of the earth due to decompression. I am not a big fan of his sub-duction model but his georeactor theory has merit. I am not sold on an Uranium core but I am nearly sold on the idea of Natural Fission reactors in and around the core or mantle somehow influencing earths radioactivity and heat. KamLand is searching for Geo-Neutrinos. http://discovermagazine.com/2002/aug/cover For a list of his papers... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Marvin_Herndon IN any event.. these people seem to have done a good job of analyzing some of the methods mentioned above. http://pecny.asu.cas.cz/cedr/download/Bajgarova_Kostelecky.pdf?PHPSESSID=10c87abce3666cd84fe4b01b9f969a46 The Japanese have an excellent map of the Moon... It has mountains too... so whatever mechanisms on earth which are causing those mountains... something without the assistance of plate tectonics and sub-duction are possibly building those ones... http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2008/04/20080409_kaguya_e.html Mercury is also a planet which has been recognized as cooling. So this besides the Sun are two bodies which have changed size regardless of accretion theory alone. Jupiter is another planet of interest regarding accretion theory. Mercury... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/07/03/scimercury103.xml "Does the Sun Shrink with Increasing Magnetic Activity?" http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001astro.ph..1473D Jupiter http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=how-does-a-planet-grow On that note... This is a very interesting development in GPS measurements. Who knows... Maybe the planet is currently shrinking? Personally... if there is matter generation occurring within the earth then I would be partial to a fluctuating earth... This would help solve some of the non-conformities and pre jurassic orogeny events. http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=63519 The first thing to think about when choosing to do battle with a scientific debtor are these doctrines. They are often used as the rulebook for academic debates foremost and to mis-understand these principles will result in any real information you have being dismissed while your credibility or logic is attacked. http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html It is not worth arguing anything with people who know more about theoretical physics, geology, and astronomy than you do. Your only option is to learn and accept everyones paradigm with a grain of salt...

This is excellent information. Thank you for your time. acceleration L/T2 So... technically this translates to... L / ( T * T ) and in the final solution the units would be represented in the SI metrics. m/s2 Undertood. Thank you.

Unfortunately I am close to what you would call math notationally illiterate and I have found that to understand physics formulas translating it to a language which I know helps. I have this formula... After translating it I have... function newtons_law_of_gravitation($G,$m1,$m2,$r12){ # ^ unit vector # r12 vector from m1 to m2 # m1 mass 1 (kg) # m2 mass 2 (kg) # F1 force on m1 ( Newtons ) $F1 = ( ($G * $m1 * $m2) / pow($r12,2) ) * $r12; return $F1; } Is this essentially correct? All of the items above the line are multiplied and then r12 below the line is multiplied to the power of two and then used to divide what is above the line and is then multiplied what is next to the line? This I'm having trouble understanding... The Big G... I have translated it to this... function gravitational_constant(){ return 6.67 * pow(10,-11); } However I cannot understand the significance of the units... m3 // is this mass cubed? kg-1 // this is kg which is also mass to my knowledge... why is it negative... s-2 // This is seconds... but it is negative as well... How can there be three units ( two of which represent the same thing ) be lined up next to each other and some negative? It makes no sense...

Okay... well... I just wanted to contribute an idea... I am clearly out of my league... It was not realized going into it... I should have read the question a little better... I've actually been through the ringer a few times today as to why I think wrong... This person says that hydrogen is effected by magnetism. I realize this doesn't exactly touch base with gravity specifically. But perhaps different materials are effected differently by forces. In the form of a question... Are all materials effected differently by forces? If somebody thinks this paper is wrong. It was not my intention. I was only trying to figure out why hydrogen collects at the tops and bottoms of planets and I ruled out gravity ( purely through speculative means ) and I thought it would be of interest to this thread. Magnetic Hydrogen Atoms and Non-Magnetic Molecules http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1085019 This is very interesting... thank you... I do trust what you say to be true and I will look into this... I just finished a battle with somebody who told me I was crazy for thinking it might happen. When you say this... you are referring to tidal/kinetic forces? Or comsic ray (proton) mass energy emissions of sorts?

Are you sure... Because I thought all of science was about proving a theory wrong. All theories being innocent until proven guilty. If energy from the stars follow the mass and energy conservation laws. E=mc^2 Why does gravity break this law? Shouldn't mass somewhere in the universe be converting itself to this energy? Like the sun will eventually deplete itself and stop emitting light energy. Shouldn't all masses which emit a gravitational force deplete themselves? This is a question not a speculation.

I was never my intention to misunderstand the meaning behind speculation. http://www.google.ca/search?q=define:speculation You are going to have to forgive me as I am only some guy off the street asking a question. Perhaps it's not a speculation at all as I claim no ownership to the idea as far as the annals of science are concerned. What if different materials effect gravity? Completely understood. If the axiom is agreed upon prior to the question being asked it is allowed to exist. If the axiom itself is being questioned then you had better not make a speculation without offering a test. A test being an abstract of assumed axioms. Is this how it works? For now I can just assume that all axioms are unquestionable? The maps I provided simply offered proof. They are real measurements. You and everybody else are allowed to test them. Did I say my speculation was correct? No... I am allowed to speculate in the speculation section. If you are going to take the time to call the concept of different materials effecting gravity, crackpot. Then prove it wrong. Preferably with something other than using the axiom in question to provide irrefutable evidence against it. In other words... I don't mind being wrong... I'm here to learn after-all... but I don't like getting beaten up with insults. I suggest you read the Speculation Policy

I didn't accept anything... I simply made a speculation in the speculation section... I made no assumptions... just an observation... speculation only... If I might add... you are too quick to react... especially at me... If there are other people who think the same thing from different avenues of science... where do you get off calling the idea crackpot?

Maybe... Because different materials have different gravitational potential... Oceanographers Catch First Wave of Gravity Mission's Success" http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/2003/103.cfm Originally I thought the increased gravity was due to magma pressure build up near volcanic areas. The iceland hotspot shows evidence of a massive gravity increase. Then... if you look at the mountain ranges you'll see rock compressing as well. So the easy thing to do is to connect pressure to gravity. However... those mountain ranges are metamorphasizing and the magma chambers are filled with mineral rich magmas. I thought it could be a density increase or mass increase but somebody pointed out that's not how physics work with magma chambers. ( hope that was good info I received from them ) So perhaps if it isn't pressure it's the minerals themselves which create the anomalies. This article interested me because it mentions Nasa's attempt to find better accuracies with gravity measurements. http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/06may_lunarranging.htm Perhaps gravity is not a constant but rather associated with the type of matter present... Why should it be if the anomalies follow recognizable patterns... Mars... ( mars gives fairly good indication that more mass equals more gravity as the relief height matches the anomalies fairly well ) http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/global/browse/br_PIA02817.jpg Moon... ( the lunar mares are recessed yet they are the youngest surfaces with potentially the most exotic heavy metals and show increased gravity ) http://lunar.arc.nasa.gov/printerready/science/newresults/dopp-ge.html

So... The solar wind is essentially a plasma and two electrons have been stripped from the helium. The helium plasma must first gain it's electrons back to become trapped by the titanium oxide. I imagine 3He+2 would just need to break free of the electrical charge to become 3He at which point it would be a normal gas which could absorb into the titanium. Is this the correct way to say this? If so... what's the difference between 3He+2 and 3He-2 (besides 4 electrons)? In laymans terms please.