Home Up Next

(This web page is the first of a seven page research paper.  It is recommended that the paper be read in the order it was written.
Please begin on this page or you can download the entire paper in Acrobat PDF format.)

The Pleistocene Mass Extinction

Glen Hendler
Originally authored February 2002
Latest Revision January 8, 2004

“There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any error. Where science has been used in the past to erect a new dogmatism, that dogmatism has found itself incompatible with the progress of science; and in the end, the dogma has yielded, or science and freedom have perished together.”
- J. Robert Oppenheimer, http://www.chemistrycoach.com/science_and_other_disciplines.htm

“An unflinching determination to take the whole evidence into account is the only method of preservation against the fluctuating extremes of fashionable opinion.”
- Alfred North Whitehead, http://www.alfred.north.whitehead.com/ANW/WitWisdom/witwis3.htm
 

    As a request at the outset, you will please allow me some leeway in regards to my imprecise description of the astrophysical extinction event, as I have little technical knowledge of the many specialized fields I will draw upon for my argument. This theory is based on my understanding of the interrelationships between a diverse selection of evidence. In addition, I am attempting to describe phenomena which may not currently have proper nouns assigned to them. Allowing for time and motivation, as I learn more this theory will be revised, perhaps with more specific detail. This theory does not attempt to explain any mass extinction that may have been caused by a meteor or comet impact.

    While this theory may at first appear highly speculative because of the novelty of its assertions it is nevertheless based overwhelmingly on verifiable physical observations. This paper merely reinterprets the evidence and presents an analysis that I believe has alluded other scientists and theorists because of its interdisciplinary complexity, the fact that much evidence has been discovered in only the past few years and months and for a number of reasons related to human psychology. Regardless, the veracity of any scientific theory should not be judged by such things but instead on how well it stands against repeated verifiable testing. Within the body of this paper and in the conclusion I provide numerous suggestions on how different aspects of the theory can be tested.

    My theory involves a gravity well as large as the galaxy itself and probably larger that I think explains not only the relative orbital velocities of stars at varying distances from the center but also the interaction between neighboring galaxies and the effect on light that creates bunching, periodicity, and arches in redshift observations. This effect on light combined with an invalid ‘Big Bang’ cosmological model has lead astronomers to conclude things as ridiculous as the Earth is the center of the universe and the Universe in 1997 has begun accelerating in its expansion. Instead I contend our ‘solar system’ is accelerating exponentially toward its closest point towards the core of the Galaxy in an elliptical orbit and this acceleration accounts for the change in supernovae redshift observations.

    I contend the astrophysical effects of our proximity can be seen in our Sun’s activity. I contend the mass of all objects in our solar system are increasing as we move deeper in the gravity well. (I think the well is spherical.) Since the Sun comprises about 99% of the mass of our solar system the effects should be seen first there and be most pronounced. Despite knowing very little relevant math I submit that if you apply Einstein’s E=mc2 to my premise that the Sun’s mass is increasing you should expect solar activity and energy/radiation output to increase. Because of the shape of the distortion of space-time the energy production should increase at an accelerating, perhaps exponential rate.

    ‘Some’ of the enormous bursts of energy from stars that have typically been understood to be supernovas I contend are actually a nova event which occurs when a star ‘sheds’ most or all of its corona. To repeat, I contend that the mass and thus the energy of a star increase as it nears the center of its galaxy and decreases as it moves away. However, at its closest point (perigee), when it moves away from the center, the energy and matter (e.g. plasma) in the corona held in place by the increased mass and gravitational forces (sun and galactic core) is released because the energy is subsequently too great to contain. I site at least two studies whose findings indicate this is possible. Long before reaching this ‘most massive’ point, the sun will noticeably increase its energy output, resulting in measurable effects on orbiting planetary systems.

    With that hypothesis in mind I searched and found substantial supporting evidence enabled by NASA’s and others dramatic increase in data collection in recent years. The solar maximum (Solarmax) of sunspot activity and its increasing duration, the correlation between the Solarmax and the rise in global temperature measurements, 8,000 observations of gas falling back into the sun’s corona, the ‘discovery’ that solar radiation destroys atmospheric ozone coupled with the fact that ozone depletion has been most pronounced over Antarctica when it directly faces the Sun in Earth’s orbital perihelion. My contention that our acceleration is exponential can be seen in the accelerated melting of not only Earth’s ice caps and glaciers but the polar ice caps on Mars as well.

    While the Earth has no corona surrounding it, I think it likely there is additional pressure exerted on the Earth’s core and other layers as it moves deeper in the gravity well. These effects produce an increase in core temperature and force additional molten material outward. One could consider the surface or crust of the Earth to be positionaly analogous to the Sun’s corona for this paper, as I believe from a human perspective, the consequential effects will be most dramatic on both. That is, when our solar system and thus the Earth ‘leaves’ and begins moving away from the center of the Galaxy, at the point it is deepest in the gravitational distortion, there will be a series of explosive events. These events will result in worldwide seismic activity the scale of which has not occurred on this planet for 220 million years. This is the kind of volcanic and tectonic activity that forces whole continents to move “dramatically”, forms mountain ranges, covers whole continents with molten lava and creates inland seas. Despite the terrifying enormity of the devastation I site several articles that support this theory with recently discovered evidence. Evidence that indicates two of the largest mass extinctions occurred 440 and 220 million years ago.

    I also contend there are measurable effects on matter of ‘much’ lesser mass that can be observed, effects on humans, for example. There are several psychological and physiological changes occurring among human populations across the planet. Most of these changes are considered mysterious and abnormal by trained professionals because they lack perspective and the frequency of occurrence is accelerating. Among the phenomena I attempt to provide a physiological explanation for are; accelerating increase of IQ, decreasing age of sexual maturation, Attention Deficit Disorder and Hyperactivity Disorder, Social Anxiety Disorder, and Asperger’s Syndrome. My hypothesis is based largely on the physiological evidence of cognitive functional differentiation and the research on functional expression (personality).

    In many ways understanding human psychology is relevant to scientific research and helps explain why I understand things that specialized professionals have not yet realized. Among them are deference to authority, social or professional status, willingness to admit fault, willingness to consider socially unpopular ideas (and evidence), acknowledgement that human understanding is incomplete and assumptions need to be reassessed in light of new evidence, and recognition that a theory is still a theory even when the majority presumes it to be fact (e.g. Big Bang ‘theory’). In order to put my argument in its proper context, my paper will begin by arguing that astronomical observational evidence used to support a Big Bang origin of the universe actually disproves the theory and instead supports the current Quasi Steady State cosmological (QSSC) theory. The theory will then shrink the sphere of evidence by moving from Cosmology to Galaxy formation theory, to the history of our Solar System, the Earth and biosphere and finally to explorations of Human physiology and psychology.
 

Home Up Next