The theories in this site are based entirely on conventional physics. There are no claims of magic or strange forces. The laws of nature are not bent or twisted to support some weird theories. If you can show that the hypotheses set out below are false, then let me, and everyone else know exactly why– but you must argue from the basic principles of science. Don’t quote mea university text book or a Victorian vicar that states that “It cannot bepossible”. Follow my arguments step by step, and then identify the flawsin the logic.
Time and again, the reaction of the scientist or layman having this theory explained is “now you have explained it – it is obvious! However can ithave been overlooked?”
Many thousands of scientists and layman have now studied these theories. No one has yet provided the evidence to refute them.
For the scientist, the following is a hypothesis – how can anyone be certain. Read the hypothesis, then see how the evidence accumulates to support it. Above all, think for yourself!
The story of mankind is far, far older than the history books in school or university would allow you to believe. So why don’t they tell us the truth?
Why have libraries been burnt over and over again? And why has sciencebeen singled out for special treatment?
Even today there are areas of basic science that you can demonstrate for yourself, but you will not find in any text book. Because this science is missing there are fundamental flaws in many areas, from our theoriesof climate, to the Grand Theories of the Universe.
The human mind is very reluctant to consider any theory that contradicts the basic tenants of a belief in science or history that was taught at school, but surely this cannot be the only reason why knowledge has been suppressed?
Even in recent years many doctors would not accept that a common food such as wheat could make people ill, or a bacterium could live in the walls of the stomach and encourage the development of ulcers. If such an erroneous belief can be so hard to dislodge from a large group of clever people who have been taught to make analytical judgements, how much more difficultis it to persuade ordinary people to think for themselves.
It may be that history has been lost through chance, that some sciencehas been overlooked, but it is easy to ridicule, and many scientists andhistorians have gone quietly to their graves, unwilling to face the wellorchestrated barrages that attack anyone that ventures into these forbiddenregions.
We know that the Roman Empire took over a fledgling church, and promoted its own version as a means of controlling the population. It burntthe ancient libraries of Alexandria. The Roman state church suppressed thedevelopment of science for over a thousand years, until regions outside itscontrol led a renaissance and it had to accept the new order. Why did itfeel the need to suppress both science and history in such a draconian way?Is the organisation that controlled this suppression still active today?
Mass publication of books, a multitude of radio and TV stations, and now the Internet have suddenly made any organised control of what people believe far more difficult. It can still be done through ridicule and media campaigns, - and control of the school curriculum - but there are now enough intelligent people, able to think for themselves, who can take this secret science and hidden history back into the mainstream.
You do have the capacity to think for yourself. This won’t be an easy story to follow if you want to check all the arguments yourself, because you will need to understand each theory and follow the logic through into the next.
This isn’t a detective story, with a dramatic twist at the end. It is a simple outline of history, and some simple high school science, but it is more bizarre than you ever imagined.
You may think that this is too bizarre to believe, but follow through each argument and the fragments will fall into place. The outline of ancienthistory certainly doesn’t agree with what you were taught at school. Thescience – if you have a background in physics you will probably wonder howit was ever overlooked, or suppressed!
At each stage you need to ask yourself a simple question: Does the History and Science here fit the facts better than the version you were taught at school?
To test your ability to think for yourself ( before we get to the really bizarre stuff ) consider the following:
Large brained human ancestors have been around for several million years. Some fossil skulls have larger brains than ourselves. Are you convinced that human civilisation developed independently all round the globe in the space of a few thousand years after the upheavals of the end of an ice age. That these first civilisations laid out the first cities on a regular grid pattern and used irrigation to water their crops? (all independently ofeach other).
Or can you accept that civilisation may have slowly developed, first here, then there, in isolated communities, flourishing for a while, then collapsing into obscurity? A process that may have been going on for a hundred thousand years or more?
If you can accept that the origins of civilisation may not be miraculous, that it may have been a very long, drawn out affair with the occasionalsuccess, many failures, then consider the next statements:
The world climate is easily displayed on a model globe, with bands of winds, cyclones and anticyclones moving round in response to the heat from thesun, the relative position of ocean and continent and distance from theequator or from the poles. We could draw an imaginary earth-like planet,and we would know that the equator would be hot and the poles cold. A landmassat the poles would accumulate snow and ice – glaciers would develop. A largelandmass near the equator would have high rainfall on mountains facingthe prevailing winds and develop deserts in their lee.
Our geography texts would have us believe that suddenly this system changed. For some unknown reason the ice started to form over North America – butnumerous large animals and tender plants grew in Siberia at that time, muchcloser to the present day North Pole.
If that sounds a little odd, then try and find a reasonable explanation of the glacial landforms of the Sahara desert, or central India. It is beyond rational belief to suggest that the Sahara suddenly got cold while the regions all round stayed warm. But it has been glaciated so recently that the smooth rocks and U shaped glacial valleys are still surface features. Continental drift cannot explain it – it has taken so long to drift from one side ofthe equator to the other that hundreds of feet of rock have eroded away.
If the cold regions cannot move away from the poles, then the earth’s surface must have moved in relation to the poles. When glaciers formed on the Sahara, the Sahara was at the pole. I will explain later how and why the poles moved, but if you think it reasonable that the North and South pole stay cold and the equator stays hot, then you have rejected many conventional theoriesof the ice ages and some of the basis for theories of global warming!
Finally in this analysis of your ability to think for yourself consider a little bit of physics. Electromagnets are used in electric motors, loud speakers, automatic locks, dynamos etc. They depend for their effect on electrons travelling through a wire. Lots of electrons all travelling in the same direction produces an electro-magnetic field that is mutually attractive. Not rocket science!
Now consider the question: does it matter what the electrons are travelling through?
The answer is no, it doesn’t matter. Any moving charge will produce anelectromagnetic field.
And that answer directly leads to a theory of the tornado, and unlocksthe key to a hidden past and an exciting future.
This information is copyright Peter Thomson 2001-2004