Across the (Electric) Universe

The botanist John Christopher Willis (1868 - 1958), one of the preeminent botanists of his time, believed in evolution but rejected the Darwinian mechanism of mutations plus natural selection.

He wrote several books densely packed with evidence from the world of plants which cast grave doubt upon the origin of species by natural selection, to which we shall return to consider in a future post. For today, however, what I find quite intriguing is the alternative mechanism that J. C. Willis proposed.

In a book entitled The Course of Evolution by Differentiation or Divergent Mutation rather than by Selection (1940), after almost two hundred pages of careful argument, he reaches the following conclusion:

There is thus very strong evidence that evolution has gone on without any direct reference to natural selection so far as we can at present see. [. . .]

Evolution goes on, but we can see no reason at present that will determine that it shall go in any particular direction, especially in one that shows greater adaptation. The mere fact of the survival of the "lower" forms in such numbers, like mosses, ferns, and liverworts, is against the idea of any rapid progress in adaptation, but probably when an "adaptation" appears, such for example as climbing habit, it will be allowed or encouraged to survive, though why it should appear is at present a mystery.

It is an inspiring thought that so great a process as evolution must have been has not been a mere matter of chance, but has behind it what one may look upon as a great thought or principle that has resulted in its moving as an ordered whole, and working itself out upon a definite plan, as other branches of science have already been shown to do. Darwinism made the biological world a matter of chance. Differentiation, backed by the universal occurrence of the hollow curves, shows that there is a general law, probably electrical, at the back of it.

The entire text can be read online in a beautiful online version here. To find the passage quoted above, which is on pages 187 to 188 of the original pagination, slide the pointer at the bottom of the screen to page 198 of the online version.

This is an extremely noteworthy conclusion by a man who did not reject Darwinian natural selection out of religious motivation but rather based upon an extraordinary and distinguished career of examining countless plants from around the globe. He was by no means an idle dreamer but a rigorous and incisive analytical thinker, a man who rose to the top of his profession and was accorded the highest honors of the scientific circles in which he moved.

In the passage cited (you can read the entire discussion, beginning on page 186, and if interested all the supporting evidence in the pages that lead up to it), Dr. Willis affords a place for natural selection, but not as the mechanism of evolution. He in fact argues that Darwin had the "direction" of evolution wrong, and that radical new genera which diverge widely and radically from previous forms arise by some unknown force and then subsequent generations become less and less divergent (the opposite of the Darwinian model -- see discussion in the final paragraph on page 186).

Dr. Willis frankly admits that neither he nor anyone else has a conclusive idea of what could cause these divergences, which he says appear to him to be purposeful rather than random (see the passage cited). He declares that the evidence points to "a great thought or principle that has resulted in its moving as an ordered whole, and working itself out upon a definite plan."

He then proposes that whatever this force or principle is that causes evolution to move "as an ordered whole" that is "working itself out upon a definite plan," that force or principle (or "general law") is "probably electrical." This conclusion is startling and noteworthy.

We should not look down upon these arguments just because they were put forward over 70 years ago, and just because they run contrary to all of the assertions of the Darwinian sect that has controlled the levers of power for the past one hundred or more years. In fact, there are plenty of reasons to believe that the Darwinian model is fatally flawed.

It is also fascinating that Dr. Willis sees some electrical law as being behind the origin of the differentiated families of living things. He could not have known then what we know today: that 99.999% of the visible universe is made up of powerfully ionized gases known as plasmas. Electricity is incredibly important, and incredibly pervasive, and its role in the universe is still only dimly understood.

However, it is perhaps understandable that a man of his obvious analytical ability and with such a deep understanding of botany would perceive the possibility that electricity has more to do with the mysteries of life as we know it than the Darwinists knew. Take a look, for example, at the image above of the plasma z-pinch (which was featured in this previous blog post) juxtaposed with the branching structure of an oak tree in winter in California.

Scientists are only recently beginning to delve into the mysteries of plasma science, but it is certainly safe to point out that there may be some relation between the "general law" governing the behavior of the arcing branches of electrical discharge in the left image and that which is influencing the growth pattern displayed by the branches and twigs in the tree in the right image.

In previous posts, we have looked at some of the work of researchers such as David Talbott, who is working with others on what is known as the Electric Universe Theory. The proponents of this paradigm believe that electricity is the key lens through which to view almost everything. The implications of their analysis is far-reaching -- some of the directions that it leads can be seen in the web page linked above and its related pages linked within, as well as on this different Electric Universe website which has its own set of pages with discussions.

I personally do not subscribe to all of the conclusions reached by these researchers, and have given some of my reasons for that in previous blog posts as well as in some of the Graham Hancock Message Board discussions linked in this post. Nevertheless, I believe the work that Mr. Talbott and other Electric Universe pioneers are doing is vitally important, and commend them for their willingness to challenge the existing paradigm and to follow the evidence where they believe that it is leading. They are working to push human knowledge forward, and whether or not all of their conclusions turn out to be right, it is critically important that these new leads are pursued and their implications explored.

I also do not agree with all of the conclusions reached by Dr. Willis in his analysis of an "electrical" mechanism of evolution. I am not at all convinced that evolution is necessarily responsible for the diversity of life on earth. However, I believe that his arguments about the problems with the currently accepted mechanism for evolution are compelling, and that his sense that there appears to be some "great thought or principle" at work in the universe and behind the diversity of life is probably correct.

His perception that electricity seems to be connected to the same "general law" as that which drives the forms which living organisms take in their endless variety is a unique one, and appears to be quite insightful, and one which cutting-edge research of recent decades is showing to be quite forward-thinking.

These are fascinating topics to ponder. This direction of inquiry has certainly not been exhausted, but represent a field that is still perhaps in its infancy, and one that invites interested analysts to explore it in the years to come. Perhaps you will be one of those who blazes new trails in this promising and fascinating area of study.

Gung hay fat choy!

The Chinese New Year is the most important celebration of the entire annual calendar in the traditional Chinese year.

Chinese New Year begins with the second New Moon after the Winter Solstice. Since there was a New Moon on December 24, 2011 (which waxed into a Full Moon on January 9th and has since been waning), the New Moon which commences on January 23rd is the second New Moon since the solstice and ushers in the Chinese New Year.

For some discussion about the phases of the moon and the celestial mechanics behind these phases, see this previous post and this previous post. For more on the celestial mechanics behind the recent Winter Solstice, see this post and this post.

This year, the calendar of Taoist astrology says that we are entering the Year of the Dragon (which occurs once every twelve years). Taoist astrology also assigns one of the five Taoist elements (or "energy phases") to each year -- the five energy phases are wood, fire, earth, metal and water. There are actually "wood dragon" years, "fire dragon" years, "earth dragon" years, "metal dragon" years, and "water dragon" years: the combination of the twelve animals plus the five energy phases creates a sixty-year cycle rather than a simple twelve-year cycle. This year will be a "water dragon" year -- the last such year in the cycle was sixty years ago, in 1952.

Here is a recent interview with Feng Shui master Raymond Lo by Bloomberg Television's Susan Li, discussing the significance of the Year of the Water Dragon:


Note the association of the Dragon with earthquakes -- this may be very significant.

We have already considered a video in which David Talbott suggests that many of the recurring symbols of the ancient world represent attempts to capture or record the effects of plasma discharge -- a relatively new but important area of scientific study. In the video below, beginning at about the 3:10 mark, Mr. Talbott examines the recurring theme of the celestial dragon, and opines that the long "barbels" or "mustaches" characteristic of the Chinese dragon may embody aspects of plasma discharge that was present in the ancient earth and observed by ancient humanity:



The hydroplate theory draws a scientific connection between powerful earthquakes and plasma discharge (see again the blog post linked above discussing the importance of piezoelectricity in the origin of radioactive isotopes and in the ongoing electric effects present around very powerful earthquakes even into the modern era).

David Talbott argues that the celestial serpent embodies powerful plasma discharge: we have already seen that the ancient Chinese associated this same dragon with earthquakes. Further confirmation is given in the video linked above of Feng Shui master Raymond Lo, associating the dragon with earthquakes. Thus, the dragon's connection with both earthquakes and powerful electric discharge (or even plasma discharge) appears to resonate with the connections made between these phenomena by the hydroplate theory (for more on the connection of plasma discharge and earthquakes, both in the cataclysmic flood event and in very powerful earthquakes in the modern era, see this section in Walt Brown's online book).

We can only hope that this year will not see any catastrophic loss of life or property from powerful earthquakes or electric discharge. However, the apparent connection between the two phenomena embodied in the dragon is an important clue about the ancient history of mankind, and an important confirmatory detail that supports the hydroplate theory.

Happy New Year to all and very best wishes for a prosperous Year of the Dragon! Gung Hay Fat Choy!

The important questions surrounding earth's radioactive isotopes

The hydroplate theory of Dr. Walt Brown provides a compelling and unified answer to a host of geological data from around the globe, and in fact from around the solar system.

Many of the phenomena which Dr. Brown's theory can explain remain a mystery to conventional theorists. One mystery of science, not widely appreciated as a mystery by the general public, is the origin of radioactivity. Our earth contains radioactive isotopes which lose energy through the emission of subatomic particles. However, where these radioactive materials actually came from remains a problem for conventional scientific models.

Some of the difficulties posed by the existence of radioactive material on earth were outlined in a report issued by the US National Research Council in 2000. That report listed eleven vexing problems that physicists and astronomers were so far unable to explain. As described in this article published around the same time, one of those eleven questions was number 3: "How were the heavy elements from iron to uranium made?"

The standard models propose that the Big Bang only created the lightest elements in the periodic table, and that "Heavier elements formed later inside stars, where nuclear reactions jammed protons and neutrons together to make new atomic nuclei." However, creating elements such as Uranium (which has 92 protons and up to 146 neutrons), is harder to explain. The article admits: "But when fusion creates elements that are heavier than iron, it requires an excess of neutrons. Therefore, astronomers assume that heavier atoms are minted in supernova explosions, where there is a ready supply of neutrons, although the specifics of how this happens are unknown."

Later, the final sentence of that article declares: "The most massive stars sometimes exploded in energetic supernovas that produced even heavier elements, up to and including iron. Where the heaviest elements, such as uranium and lead, came from still remains something of a mystery."

Dr. Brown points out several other glaring problems with conventional explanations for the origin of radioactive materials (including Uranium, which is one of the most important of them and a major clue to the earth's ancient past). One of the most vexing of these difficulties poses major problems for the conventional explanation of the earth's formation: "Notice, if the earth is 4.6 billion years old and ²³⁵U was produced and scattered by some supernova billions of years earlier, ²³⁵U’s half-life of 700 million years is relatively short. Why is ²³⁵U still around, how did it get here, what concentrated it, and where is all the lead that the ²³⁵U decay series should have produced?" (from note to figure 179 in the online 9th edition of Dr. Brown's book).

Uranium-235 is an unstable, radioactive isotope of uranium, containing only 143 neutrons. It decays in a series of intermediate steps to form a stable lead isotope, Pb-207. The hydroplate theory proposes that nearly all of the radioactive isotopes found on earth today were created as a consequence of a relatively recent, catastrophic global flood. This theory explains why Uranium-235 hasn't been creating Pb-207 for billions of years. It also clears up numerous other difficulties, such as the fact that radioactivity is primarily concentrated in the earth's crust (if the earth really formed as a molten ball containing the radioactive isotopes present today, we would expect to find them scattered more uniformly throughout the thickness of the globe, but evidence so far indicates that this is not the case, as Dr. Brown's book also points out).

Dr. Brown proposes a startling mechanism for the origin of the radioactive isotopes found in the earth's crust: plasma discharge during the flood event. He explains:

Powerful electrical activity within earth’s crust produced earth’s radioactivity. As the flood began, stresses in the massive fluttering crust generated huge voltages via the piezoelectric effect. For weeks, this resulted in discharges of electrons within the crust and subterranean water, much like bolts of lightning. These electrical surges squeezed atomic nuclei together temporarily into very unstable, superheavy elements which quickly fissioned and decayed into subatomic particles and new radioisotopes. Each step in this process is demonstrable on a small scale. Calculations and other evidence show that these events happened on a global scale. (See the section of his book entitled "The Origin of Earth's Radioactivity."

The term "piezoelectric" comes from the Greek word "piezo" meaning "squeezing" -- thus, "squeezing electricity" or "compression electricity." Piezoelectric discharge is created in quartz (present in the granite plates of the earth's crust) when it undergoes compression and tensile stretching (see figure 181 in his book). Dr. Brown points to evidence that suggests that very powerful earthquakes even today release electric discharge due to piezoelectric forces -- some examples are cited in this previous post (see also the eyewitness accounts described in this 1912 book beginning on pages 46-47).

As with other aspects of Dr. Brown's theory, his examination of the geological evidence may have important applications to mysteries of mankind's ancient past as well. In this case, the evidence for powerful plasma discharges during the cataclysmic events surrounding the flood itself suggest the likelihood that powerful earthquakes in the centuries immediately following may have been accompanied by more frequent phenomena such as the glows and light flashes still reported in some very powerful earthquakes in the modern period.

If so, it could provide an explanation for the rock art discussed in David Talbott's film, Symbols of an Alien Sky, which he argues contain distinctive elements of plasma discharge formations (paralleling the work of plasma astrophysicist Dr. Anthony L. Peratt). Images and discussion of this rock art and its similarity to plasma geometry can be seen starting at about the 6:20 mark in this video by David Talbott, and further discussion can be seen in this web page and elsewhere.

The plasma connection is compelling, and an important angle for analysts to explore. It seems that the hydroplate theory may contribute to the discussion, especially since it is backed up by literally thousands of geological data points in its favor (unlike some of the more speculative theories that have been proposed to explain these plasma-shaped art forms, such as the theory of longstanding nearby planetary alignment along earth's polar axis, which so far does not appear to have the geological evidence we would expect to find if that had in fact taken place).

In this question, as in the larger question of the origin of earth's radioactivity, and the question of whether there was in fact a cataclysmic global flood as described by the hydroplate theory, it is important to examine all the evidence and to keep an open mind regarding theories that can best explain the evidence. Walt Brown has a quotation in his book which is really quite exemplary regarding the best way to approach such inquiry. In the section introducing his theory for the origin of radioactivity (in contrast to the traditional explanation involving successive generations of stars and supernovas), he says:

Both theories will stretch the reader’s imagination. Many will ask, “Could this really have happened?” Two suggestions: First, avoid the tendency to look for someone to tell you what to think. Instead, question everything yourself, starting with this book. Second, follow the evidence. Look for several “smoking guns.” I think you will find them.

Extraordinary sediment deposit from Pakistan to Bhutan supports hydroplate theory

A recent study published in the Bulletin of the Geological Society of America in 2010 entitled "Extraordinary transport and mixing of sediment across Himalayan central Gondwana during the Cambrian-Ordovician" by geologists Paul M. Myrow, Nigel C. Hughes, John W. Goodge, C. Mark Fanning, Ian S. Williams, Shanchi Peng, Om N. Bhargava, Suraj K. Parcha, and Kevin R. Pogue concludes that the sediments across an enormous stretch of earth from Pakistan to Bhutan (around 2,000 kilometers or 1,242 miles wide and thousands of feet deep) all came from a single source.

This is an extraordinary finding, as the title of their text admits, and one that is extraordinarily difficult to explain according to conventional uniformitarian theories. Their tests indicate that the sediments are uniformly mixed and identical over this vast distance, which would be next to impossible if they were blown there by the various winds or carried there by many different streams and rivers.

Another strange finding the geologists noted is the wide range of zircon ages in the zircon crystals mixed in with the sediments over this vast area.

Zircons are tiny mineral grains found in sediments around the world, and they contain trace levels of the radioactive elements uranium and thorium. These radioactive elements allow scientists to measure the amounts of those elements present and place dates on the zircons. In the study above, the geologists found that the sediments registered ages stretching from 3.2 billion years ago to only 300 million years ago -- causing them to conclude that all these uniform sediments were deposited very slowly over a vast stretch of time, which they also found extraordinary. For sediments to be blown or carried into place uniformly over such a vast area of earth's surface is itself extraordinary: for the conditions which allowed such extraordinary distribution to remain in place for billions of years is even more unlikely.

Using a conventional geological framework, the scientists were forced to conclude that "The great distances of sediment transport and high degree of mixing of detrital zircon ages [. . .] may be attributed to a combination of widespread orogenesis associated with the assembly of Gondwana, the equatorial position of continents, potent chemical weathering, and sediment dispersal across a nonvegetated landscape."

This speculative series of events is hardly a satisfying explanation. However, as is the case with numerous other geological facts which cause the conventional theorists great difficulty, the massive deposit of uniformly well-mixed sediments on the ocean-ward side of the Himalayas (stretching from Pakistan to Bhutan) can be well and simply explained by the hydroplate theory, as Dr. Walt Brown does when he discusses the 2010 geological study.

He writes:

During the compression event at the end of the flood, the sudden uplift of the Himalayas (today's tallest and most massive mountain range) forced the overlying flood waters to spill away from the rising peaks and down the flanks of the new mountain range. Massive amounts of sediments were carried with those violent waters and deposited in thousand-foot-thick layers at the base of the Himalayas. www.creationscience.com "Rising Himalayas" in the chapter in Part II entitled "The Origins of Earth's Radioactivity"

This explanation is certainly more coherent than the idea that vast portions of the region remained "nonvegetated" for billions of years, allowing "extraordinary distribution" of sediments (as the uniformitarian geologists propose).

But what about the finding that zircons mixed into the massive sediment deposit appear to have ages stretching from 3.2 billion years to only 300 million years? First, let us note that this fact gives the conventional theorists even bigger problems than the extraordinary size of the deposit itself. They do not have a good explanation for it, and it forces them to speculate that the very extraordinary conditions (which are difficult to believe in all by themselves) lasted for an astronomical length of time (which is even more difficult to swallow).

However, as it turns out, the hydroplate theory has a good explanation for the readings of radioactivity in the zircon grains, an explanation which is related to the problem of the origin of radioactivity itself.

Dr. Brown suggests that the radioactivity of materials within earth's crust was created by the powerful electrical and plasma discharges that accompany severe vibration and distortion of the earth's crust, which took place around the world in the events leading up to and during the rupture that initiated the cataclysmic global flood. Such plasma discharges are reported even today around extremely powerful earthquakes. Dr. Brown points out that multiple eyewitness accounts from the powerful New Madrid earthquakes of 1811-1812 in the United States described such phenomena (many are listed on pages 46-47 of this 1912 book about those earthquakes, in which the author begins by saying "The phenomena of what may be termed 'light flashes' and 'glows' seem so improbable that they would be dismissed from consideration but for the considerable number of localities from which they were reported").

In this web page from the online version of his book (which Dr. Brown makes available to everyone free of charge), Dr. Brown explains the evidence supporting the hydroplate theory explanation of the origin of radioactivity on earth, evidence which conventional theories find difficult to explain. According to his theory, the electrical discharges which produced radioactivity would have also greatly accelerated the decay of the uranium and thorium found in zircons, which is why conventional dating that assumes constant decay at today's rates will come up with erroneously long ages for zircons, including those found below the Himalayas in the study above.

Dr. Brown points out that other studies which measure the diffusion of helium out of the same zircons that are measured at billions of years of age by the state of uranium and thorium decay come up with ages of only 4,000 to 8,000 years of age judging by the amounts of helium remaining in the zircons. This discrepancy simply cannot be explained by the conventional theories, although some have speculated that something could have kept the helium in the zircons somehow.

Dr. Brown's explanation, however, explains these findings. If the violent disturbance of the crust during the events surrounding the flood produced extreme electrical discharges which created radioactive materials in the crust, including the uranium and thorium in zircons, and if those powerful electrical discharges also produced accelerated decay in the uranium and thorium, then the uranium and thorium in zircon would appear to be very old to those who do not account for the accelerated decay, but the helium which is produced within the zircons by the decay of the uranium and thorium would leak out at known rates and produce a true reading of the age of the zircons -- only 4,000 to 8,000 years ago.

Dr. Brown elsewhere points out that the hydroplate theory's explanation for the origin of radioactive uranium is much more logical than the conventional theory, which has a very hard time explaining how an element such as uranium-235 with a half-life of only 700 million years is still around at all, if it was created along with the earth 4 to 6 billion years ago.

In short, the 2010 publication of the extraordinary sedimentary deposit stretching across the base of the Himalayas from Pakistan to Bhutan raises ever-more-puzzling questions for proponents of conventional geological theories, but it leads to ever-more-compelling evidence supporting the hydroplate theory.