My theory of
planetary
neurogenesis implies Earth is a living being. Evidence for this is piling up.
First, I have found
strong
correlation between major mass extinctions and Earth's discontinuities (mantle layers). This is
extremely difficult to explain without involving an equivalent of genetic coding.
There are two possible explanations for the correlation:
- either the Earth's radius has expanded for almost 1000 km during the Phanerozoic (last 541 million
years) with discontinuities between layers formed at times of major mass extinctions and
representing something similar to tree growth rings, or
- dates of major mass extinctions are hardcoded in Earth's [brain] mantle.
At first, it seems the first explanation doesn't require living Earth, however, if Earth has been
growing, new mass obviously wasn't being added on top of it, in general. New mass (which may be dominantly
liquid) must have been added (ingested) through an opening (e.g., one revealed/recreated with melting
of ice in Antarctica).
And how then to interpret this other than transmigration of cells to mantle layers or feeding?
Here, it is assumed that expansion of Earth's volume is not due to gas or vacuum expansion
inside it, rather due to addition of mass. Some vacuum expansion cannot be ruled out though and
it may be synchronized with mass ingestion.
As usually is the case with Earth, a superposition of two explanations is probably most likely.
Discontinuities are hardcoded but the Earth probably does expand a little too with mass shifted
at these discontinuities (although, according to paleomagnetic evidence and research
on Earth's past rotation, the expansion is not significant, unless it is relatively quickly
followed by contraction).
More recently, I have found new evidence, not only for living Earth, but
living Mars and Venus too. Kleiber's law states that an animal's metabolic rate scales to
the 3/4 power of its mass. For larger animals, metabolism is slower.
It has been shown later that an exponent of 2/3 is more appropriate for smaller
animals, however, I think we'll all agree that Earth is a large animal and for these the
exponent 3/4 holds, especially for mammals.
Thus, if Venus, Mars and Earth are animals of different species Kleiber's law should apply to
them. If evolution of life on the surface of a planet is cultivation of [large-scale] cells and
proteins which are destined to migrate to mantle layers at specific times during
embryogenesis (neurogenesis), then the rate of this cultivation (evolution) should be different
between different planets and this difference can be calculated by applying the Kleiber's law.
So
that's
what I did. When the law is applied to these 3 planets, following results are obtained:
- 4.54 billion years of evolution on Earth are compressed to 852 million years on Mars,
- 4.54 billion years of evolution on Earth are compressed to 3.9 billion years on Venus.
And this is completely in agreement with studies, which show Mars lost its habitability
some 900 million years since formation (roughly 3.6 billion years ago) and Venus
some 700 million years ago.
Not only do the results agree with research, the results suggest the current extinction on
Earth is probably final and Earth will soon lose surface habitability. Not forever
though, however, instead of living surface punctuated by extinction pulses the inanimate surface
will be punctuated by pulses of relatively short-term and probably partial habitability (as
evidence shows has been happening on Mars).
Obviously, humans are not special to Earth, humans have evolved on Mars and Venus too and
probably weren't much different than us.
If evolution of humans is coded then the current climate change is probably coded too so if
humans would stop emitting greenhouse gases nature would use other ways to
achieve higher temperature or whatever is required for the major extinction/transmigration.
And, recently, evidence has shown up for that too. In the year 2020, due to lockdowns, humans have
emitted much less greenhouse gases than usually, however, studies show
both CO
2 and
CH4 (methane) have
been
rising. In
fact,
methane levels
hit record high in 2020 with a new record set in 2021, something that's currently unexplained.
Humans may have been used to kick-start the process but the sense of control is an
illusion - probability for humans to halt and reverse it is infinitesimal if this is a coded
major event rather than an excursion. And even if it could be halted, that probably wouldn't bring
anything good for anyone, it would be similar to halting the embryonic development of life in a
human womb.
Another indication that the planet is taking over may be the last year's colossal eruption of
the Hunga Tonga volcano, which, unexpectedly, ejected big amounts of water
vapor (greenhouse gas) into the atmosphere instead of ejecting big amounts
of sulphur dioxide (SO
2), thus
heating
the Earth's troposphere instead of cooling it. Of course, this heating effect may be
temporary (lasting less than a couple of months or years) but it will help release more
greenhouse gases from the poles. And who's to say there won't be more eruptions?
If water vapor would be constantly added to stratosphere the term "temporary" becomes very
relative. In that case, human CO
2 emissions won't matter at all. If this water comes
from volcanic eruptions it is not coupled to (controlled by) non-condensable gases in the
atmosphere - water vapor would now control temperature (and indirectly gases
like CO
2 and CH
4) instead of the other way around. We might even see
water vapor replacing aerosols that provide the cooling effect, heating the stratosphere and
thus making atmospheric water lifetime longer, less temporary.
If we are amidst a major extinction (and I'd say we obviously are) there will be more
significant volcanic eruptions and, if the goal is to increase atmospheric water
vapor, I wouldn't be surprised if Hunga Tonga erupts again (or/and some other
similar
candidate) in a couple of years, if not sooner.
In the neurogenesis theory I have predicted that the primary goal is the increase of ocean
acidity (pH decrease to 7.33) and I have also predicted that deep underwater volcanoes will have
a big role in achieving this goal. If that is the case, at some point surface temperature
might stop climbing and might even start decreasing (while deep ocean heats up) to slow down
degassing of CO
2 from the ocean.
In any case, volcanoes should have a big role although some volcanism could be replaced by
human action (e.g., nuclear war).
Of course, if Earth is a living being its insides are also probably much different than what is
commonly thought. And another evidence for that may have shown up. One explanation for the
neutrino anomaly detected by ANITA in Antarctica is a significantly different density profile
of Earth, suggesting large low-density (or hollow) areas. And a large relatively hollow tunnel
below Antarctica, leading deep inside Earth is exactly what I have predicted (migration of
cells/proteins requires this tunnel) and what is expected for a living being.
The neutrinos could even be created inside Earth. Thermonuclear fusion does not occur
in Earth's core but some form of low energy nuclear reactions could. In any case, streams of
charged particles and neutrinos are possible.
After all, we haven't drilled deeper than 12 km on land and 8 km below ocean, which means we
haven't reached anything beyond the upper crust. Everything
known about Earth's interior is the result
of assumptions and models matching seismic velocities. Sure, sometimes Earth expels minerals
like ringwoodite that require high pressure for formation and perhaps this mineral even forms
a layer in Earth's mantle but this does not mean all of it formed inside Earth - the same mineral
is commonly found in meteorites. But even if it has been formed inside Earth, the pressure/gravity
distribution can be more complex than assumed (as it commonly is in living beings). It may have been formed in
the very early days of Earth's formation when the planet was more compressed.
For some reason, human civilization is coded to know very little but confidently believe
a lot. It is even coded to program itself that way. And when it comes to biggest
animals - from whales to planets and beyond, or the smallest - from microbes to atoms and
beyond, it couldn't be more wrong. But that's not bad.
If an antelope would be [coded to be] always right, there would be no lions.