The Moon: the absolute poverty of the 'Standard Model' and its explanation of anything to do with the Moon, from creation to 'gravity'.
No Science here. Dogma, gospel, maths and inane theories that should embarrass a 15 year old. The universe is an energy engine, full of material. Denying that is to be a reality denier.
“The best explanation for the Moon is observational error—the Moon does not exist.” — Irwin Shapiro (Former Director of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics).
“The isotopic similarities between the Earth and the Moon have thrown the giant impact hypothesis into a crisis... The standard giant impact model cannot easily explain this isotopic likeness.” — H. Jay Melosh (Distinguished Professor of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Purdue University, 2014 Royal Society publication)
The Joker
Shapiro was making a famous, cynical joke among astrophysicists, but it highlights the poverty of the propaganda.
The mathematical and dynamic parameters required for the Moon to exist where it does, at the size it is, necessary for life on this planet, are statistically so improbable that it is mathematically easier to assume the Lunar node does not exist, than to try to explain how it was formed from the standard gravitational model.
You remember Newton’s God called ‘Gravity’. It assembles, it forms, it attracts, it repels, it explodes, it implodes, it organises, it disorganises, it aggregates, it destroys, it manufactures life but also scary singularities like Black Holes; and it keeps the lid on our atmosphere even as you use a $50 Walmart air pump (‘vacuum cleaner’) and clean your carpets overcoming this holy spirit of a force. Just the mere thought of this divine being brings you to your knees in supplication and mumbling. Don’t forget to transmute iron into gold.
The second quote above describes a very specific disproof of astrophysics’ explanation of Moon formation. They can’t avoid the obvious. Chemical fingerprints do not lie. But the ‘Standard Model’ does lie and if can’t outwardly lie, it will tie you up in layers of mathematical knots that can never be unravelled. Easier and more fun to chew off your right arm.
Here is the issue:
The Standard Model (SM) cannot explain the ‘Moon’. The SM cannot explain the Moon’s existence, creation, materiality, its precise distance from this planet, its lack of rotation, why it is pinned to the Earth, and the SM will never discuss its impact on the aetheric flows of energy and pressure within space, which impact this planet (see Allais). Other than that, the SM is ‘expert’ on all things Lunar - especially ‘landings’.
We discussed previously why the Moon has almost no impact on tidal flows and why the SM (as usual) is completely wrong on ascribing the complicated ‘heaving’ and ‘lifting’ of 370.000 Gigatonnes of water globally every day within large basins in patterns which have nothing to do with the Moon’s precession, to an orb 1/81 the mass of this planet.
Honestly. Moon-tidal theory is about as intelligent and ‘scientific’ as ‘Origin of the Species’. It fails analysis.
As with ‘tides’ the SM will offer ‘explanations’ for the ‘Moon’ and its attributes but they also fail an audit. No worries, none of this is taught, so no one knows about it. Keep it a secret. Don’t want the deniers having a go now do we.
1. SM Formation Theory (The Giant Impact Hypothesis)
For the past 40 years the SM has endlessly propagated the mentally unbalanced notion of a giant meteor or planet, impacting the Earth and then (quite magically), the debris from this nuclear collision forming the Moon. Gravity of course, that holy spirit of wizardry, took the exploded material and nicely bundled it up into a perfect-sized spherical shape and placed it exactly where it needed to be for this planet and the enablement of life; and to provide a ‘night light’ for humans. Of course it did. Everyone knows. Thanks ‘gravity’.
The Establishment Claim: Roughly 4.5 billion years ago, a Mars-sized planet or meteor named ‘Theia’ smashed into the early Earth. The colossal impact vaporised Theia and a chunk of Earth’s crust, blowing a massive ring of debris into orbit, which eventually coalesced and cooled into the Moon. The circus calls this ‘science’.
Reality: Consider one fact out of many. If the Moon is made of a completely alien planet (Theia) mixing with Earth, the isotopic signatures (the chemical fingerprints) of the Moon and Earth should be different (see 2nd quote at the beginning). But Apollo rock samples (yes Apollo is a fraud, but let’s play the game), showed the Earth and Moon have virtually identical isotopic signatures.
The establishment has had to constantly rewrite the Theia math to explain why the Moon looks like it was made entirely of Earth dirt, which heavily fractures their impact consensus. This theory is anyway devoid of common sense but even in isolation it fails an audit (Canup, 2012).
Now they contort themselves with theories of ‘syntesia’, a new theoretical gymnastic routine based on a vaporised donut theory to overcome the failure of the glancing-blow model (Lock et al, 2018).
Below is a simulation of Theia hitting the Earth. There is not an angle of impact which supports the SM claims of Moon formation. Either the Earth is vaporised or the debris from a tangential impact would form nothing. Further, the Earth would be kicked out of its orbit and probably destroyed by a ‘glancing blow’. You can try this at home or in a lab.
Simulation:
They are trying to tell you that a massive collision between 2 extraordinarily large objects led to a perfect design and creation; not to mention the exact location of a third. This theory is as stupid as stupid gets. The ultimate ‘stuff happens’ that these mathemagicians love.
2. Composition & a ‘Crystalline’ Surface
The Moon has a reflective surface. In 1946 the US military was bouncing radio waves off the Moon. The Soviets replied with their own beams in the 1950s. The Fake News trumpeted blaring headlines and excitable articles on these endeavours. Bouncing beams off the Moon in the 1940s, 50s, and early 60s, does not mean that the fraud Neil of the Strong Arm set up an arm-length reflector on the surface in 1969.
Apparently if you were bouncing radio waves off the Moon in 1962, it proves that Saint Neil planted a reflector there in 1969. When you send a beam to the Moon the signal disperses over many miles, it is not an arrow head hitting a target. If it reflects back the returned signal will be extremely weak, scintillated and diffuse. You wouldn’t know what it was hitting and you certainly could not credit a ‘reflector’. That ‘reflector’ if it existed, would be a small object within a very large area. So that claim is anti-science. In reality Apollo’s reflector if it was real (it isn’t of course), would be coated in Moon dust and probably destroyed by solar, cosmic events and rays, not to mention 250F temperatures.
The Establishment Claim: NASA and ‘The Science’ claim they know the composition of the Moon from the Apollo films and from unmanned probes. The problem is that the Apollo claims are frauds and unmanned probes have brought back soil and rock samples which disproved the original Apollo 11 rock claims (eg ESA in 1999 amongst many other examples). Not a good angle if you are an Apollo Fanboy.
Narrative confusion: Even if we accept the narrative, the theory now is that the Lunar surface is made of standard silicate rocks, oxygen, silicon, magnesium, iron, calcium, and aluminium. This is similar to, but also quite different than the Earth’s surface.
The Moon is supposedly bone dry and entirely depleted of ‘volatiles’ (another science word from the establisment), or elements and compounds that boil off or vaporize easily at high temperatures.
The Earth’s crust is saturated with water, carbon, nitrogen and ‘volatiles’. The lunar rocks ‘brought back by the Apollo missions’ were completely anhydrous (bone dry). They contain virtually no water locked in their mineral structures (this is because they were sourced from meteorites in Antarctica, in 1967).
Earth is rich in sodium and potassium. The Moon has almost none.
The Moon’s surface is reflective, the Earth’s is not. The lunar surface is deeply saturated with microscopic, highly spherical glass beads (silicon dioxide), our planet is not.
You can ask the wizards a simple question.
“Can you show in a lab how 2 colliding objects with different material compositions will produce a third and very unique object with a reflective surface? Or, can you produce in a lab the collision of Theia with Gaia, with the resulting composition reflecting only Gaia’s material; yet is different from the actual crust makeup found on Gaia?”
Take your time Fanboys and please do invoke your God gravity, in the explanation. We also expect at least 18 layers of tautological geometry to be used as well.
3. SM and the Gravity ‘Trap’ (generation & distance)
The Moon is 1/81 the mass of this planet. The barycentre or the centre of interaction between the Moon and Earth lies below the Earth’s surface (more below). How then does the Moon ‘pull’ on this planet? You weigh 80kg. Do you believe a 1 kg object 240K miles distance is pulling on your surface? Assuming you are sane, you kept your innate intelligence as you ran the gauntlet of state-education; and you avoid TV, you don’t.
The Establishment Defense: In 1915 Messiah Einstein attacked Newton’s idea of gravity as a ‘pulling force’ across empty space. The Messiah himself criticasting the Saint. Oh dear. He called this “spooky action at a distance”. General Relativity, which is another mathematical nonsense, claims that mass physically warps the fabric of spacetime.
Question to the Messiah: How does a vacuum possess the properties of a ‘fabric’? Isn’t a ‘fabric’ analogous to material and a medium? How is a material medium a ‘vacuum’? Please reply with 400 pages of esoteric circular-logic tensor calculus.
This substack has taken a very sharp axe to Einstein’s impossible claim and mathemagicianism. In Einstein’s theory, unlike Newton’s, the Moon isn’t ‘reaching out’ to grab the Earth; rather, the Earth and the Moon are sitting in deep, geometric dents or ‘geodesic rails’ in spacetime, and they are constantly rolling toward each other’s dents or positions, akin to a train system.
Realism: Many posts on here destroy the spacetime merger fantasy. Merging a calculation (time) with an absolute (space) is anti-science. Creating a fourth dimension which cannot be proven is anti-science. Ascribing unknown sources of gravity or a gravitational field to the spacetime dimension you cannot physically prove is anti-science.
Einstein’s tautological (mathematically fraudulent) explanation relies on a geometrical abstraction (warped spacetime) that has never been physically isolated or proven to interact with fluid dynamics (like ocean water) in a lab.
The SM swapped Newton’s invisible tether for an invisible trampoline, the train analogy, or the invisible ‘bowling ball on a pillow’ visual to explain what they don’t understand - why is our solar system stable and how does it operate?
4. The Barycenter (Subterranean Anchor)
Let’s return to the idea of a barycentre.
Definition: In the SM a barycentre is considered be the center of mass between two or more interacting bodies. We discussed this when looking at why Jupiter does not orbit the Sun. The barycentre is the exact point in space where the combined mass of the objects perfectly balances out.
Analogy - Equal Mass: If you have two children of the exact same weight sitting on a seesaw, the fulcrum (the balance point) must be exactly in the dead center.
Analogy - Unequal Mass: If an adult sits on one end and a child sits on the other, the seesaw should instantly tip (given child obesity this is just an assumption). To make it balance, you have to move the fulcrum closer to the adult depending on the obesity of the child.
In simple SM terms when two bodies interact gravitationally they do not orbit each other, they both orbit the fulcrum or a point in between like a teeter-totter (what a weird name it should be said).
Equation: R1 = a ((m2) / (m1 + m2))
· R1 is the distance from the center of the heavy body to the barycenter.
· a is the total distance between the centres of the two bodies.
· m1 is the mass of the heavy body.
· m2 is the mass of the lighter body.
This is important and it is never taught. Using basic maths we know that the Moon-Earth barycentre is not what is claimed by the SM. The fulcrum is sitting below our surface.
Consider this. The Earth’s radius is roughly 3,958 miles. The Earth is 81 times heavier than the Moon. Let’s plug the following variables into the above equation.
· Mass of the Earth (m1): 5.972 * 10^24 kg
· Mass of the Moon (m2): 7.348 * 10^22 kg
· Average Distance Between Centres (a): 384,400 kilometers (roughly 238,855 miles)
· Radius of the Earth (Surface Level): 6,371 kilometers (roughly 3,958 miles)
The result is that R1 is approx. 4,670 kilometers, or roughly 2,900 miles.
Wrap your head around this one:
This means that the Earth-Moon barycentre is 2900 miles from the Earth’s ‘centre’ or below the mantle. The ‘fulcrum’ of the Moon-Earth relationship is resting about 1,000 miles below the surface of the Earth.
That is what the SM’s own maths tell us. Regale us again with the children’s fable on how the Moon drags the Earth’s oceans all over the place as found in that best-selling children’s fiction book, “ Newton and Einstein’s Fairy Tales”.
5. Why is this important Chud?
The above analysis again annihilates SM claims about the Moon, the Moon-Earth relationship, the SM claims about the Sun, heliocentricity, the Sun-Earth relationship and Einstein’s banal theories. Other than that everything is fine.
A. It Proves the Earth is the True Anchor
The Earth-Moon barycentre calculation rather obviously indicates that the Earth and Moon are not part of a simplistic ‘binary’ system, a rock and a fluid sphere journeying on Einstein’s magical train tracks.
The Earth acts as a massive, virtually unyielding stator, part of an engine, and the Moon is simply tethered to our internal baseline. That is what the SM model’s own maths tell us. Back to 2 stroke engines, with a rotor (the aether) and the stator (capacitor, or Earth).
B. The barycentre destroys the ‘Stationary Center’ myth
Consider the propaganda that we are fed, which you can never criticise. We are taught that the Sun sits perfectly still while the planets draw elliptical circles with retrograde motions around it (except Jupiter). This process lasts billions, trillions, Brazilians of Darwinian years. No change.
The barycenter math proves this is false. As we discussed with Jupiter, because Jupiter is so massive, the m2 in the equation above forces the fulcrum completely outside the surface of the Sun. This proves the Sun is not a stationary anchor; it is violently wobbling around an invisible point in empty space.
If the center of the system is moving, the entire geometric premise of a ‘Heliocentric’ absolute center collapses. The Sun is moving, we are moving, everything is in flux (based on SM claims) and now many models can be used to explain the phenomena.
C. Math Over Matter Problem
In physical reality we must measure physical objects interacting with physical mediums. As simple as that. A barycenter, by definition, is a mathematical point in empty space or below our surface. It has no physical substance, no mass, and no charge.
Yet the Standard Model demands that massive, trillion-ton stars and planets physically orbit an invisible mathematical ghost-point - by magic. The ‘ellipse’ is never explained. You need a dipole or 2 poles to produce an ellipse. They give us one - the Sun. Where is the other? They also demand that physical matter obeys non-physical geometry in a void or ‘vacuum’. So, there is no recourse. The SM needs to conjure a 4th dimension and fields of gravity and energy appearing from nowhere.
6. Why the knife Chud?
Can’t resist sharpening and sticking in the knife. NASA barely mentions the hell of the Van Allen Radiation belts. According to ‘The Science’ Fanboys, zipping through the 30-50.000 miles of radiated plasma energy in the Orion or Apollo Mini Vans is akin to a dental visit. In reality, you will die.
There is a reason why the ISS might be 250 miles in altitude and the Hubble Space Telescope ~350 miles in altitude. That is the limit Fanboys. Even at those altitudes, both need constant repairs and both are being sun-tanned by massive radiation doses. Don’t forget the sunglasses and the endless jokes.
Van Allen Radiation Belts (VARBs, a Dielectric Buffer)
The SM would define the VARBs as a ‘dielectric buffer’ a term which means electric insulation. This is a material that does not allow electricity to flow through it; examples include glass, rubber, plastic, dry wood, and the air itself (Alfvén, 1981). Yes air and what is the air related to? Ah, yes, it is the aether.
VARB simulation - there is difference between Electromagnetism (a window) and Charged Plasma (a shield) (Birkeland, 1908).
What the video is showing: the VARB acts as a cosmic window, blocking catastrophic electrical discharge while allowing the oscillating waves of light and heat to pass through. As for physical plasma, the VARB isn’t a solid wall; it is a magnetic toroid (pressure system). It deflects the brunt of the solar wind, traps the rest to charge the sky’s capacitor, and funnels the remaining plasma down to the magnetic poles, creating the Auroras. No VARBs, no you.
Again, observational proof is the basis of the explanation. Don’t be an Aurora denier. Even ‘The Science’ now admits that space is an electrical chamber and calls these effects ‘Birkland Currents’ (after spending the better part of a century denying this reality).
Dielectric phenomena disproves the SM theory about the Moon-Earth relationship.
Energy Reality: Standard orbital mechanics completely ignores electromagnetic energy. They treat the space between Earth and the Moon as a dead ‘vacuum’ where only gravity matters. Absolutely inane.
VARB: Okay Fanboys. Now explain the Van Allen Radiation Belts. These are massive, highly charged layers of trapped plasma. In an electrical universe, these belts act as the ‘dielectric capacitor’ between the grounded Earth (cathode) and the charged sky (anode). Back to Faraday and Maxwell who are never taught (Scott, 2006).
The immense energy stored in the VARBs proves the Earth-Moon relationship is not just ‘rocks pulling on each other’; it is a highly active, closed-loop electromagnetic circuit.
Because incoming energy is oscillating (AC, back to Tesla), it easily permeates the dielectric layer of the VARB, transferring energy to the grounded Earth below.
The VARBs disprove the Standard Model and this is never discussed of course.
Bottom Line
The SM has a problem with the Moon (and just about anything else in reality). Its provenance, location, ‘gravity’, the barycentre, its surface materiality and its operation within a universe of energy. The SM is as dead as Einstein’s theories upon which it sits. We can recap some important points.
Einstein’s theories are the basis of the SM, and they try to explain what Newtonianism never could. In the A-Stone’s model space must be curved, planets must operate in geodesic train tracks, gravity from nowhere operates in a ‘field’. These ad hoc maths are just replacements for Newtonian gravity-tethers, and the reality of energy, the aether and the 2 stroke engine model of pressure systems and fluid dynamics. They are no more real than Globaloney-warming from plant food.
More could be said but the ridden horse is dead. Long live the horse. There is a massive gap between classical kinematics (SM) and the reality of an electromagnetic-aetheric model. The next 2 posts explore this further.
But everyone knows this. Professor Duck-Waddle in your physics class took you through ‘both sides of the argument’ when discussing the Moon, in the interest of critical thinking and ‘liberal ideas’. No Kings in science he remonstrated. You remember. Follow the evidence and common sense logic he declaimed waving his thin little arms, animated and excited. Think like a farmer. Live in reality he cheered.
Or maybe not. More likely Duck-Waddle was spitting on his brown corduroy jacket and drooling on his green plaid shirt against any who question the church and its dogma, those deniers, conspiracy theorists and ‘idiots who just don’t understand physics’ and are too ‘stoooopid’ to comprehend how the Lunar node operates in the cosmos as explained by Messiah A-Stone. Don’t question Ducky on the Strong Arm fraud, he becomes extremely violent.
All hail.
====
Next post: Why your vacuum cleaner is not a vacuum and how it disproves the SM theology.
Post after that: The Standard Model - what the hell is it? And why is it such a mess, and about as ‘standard’ and ‘modelled’ as our cat’s breakfast (or litter).
3rd post: Holograms, Black Ops and the Alien nonsense. Just for fun.
Sources you can read which support the post.
Canup, R.M. (2012) ‘Forming a Moon with an Earth-like composition via a giant impact’, Science, 338(6110), pp. 1052-1055. Details how the establishment had to completely rewrite the collision parameters to try and save the theory from the isotopic evidence.
Lock, S.J., Stewart, S.T., Petaev, M.I., Leinhardt, Z.M., Mace, M.T., Jacobsen, S.B. and Ćuk, M. (2018), ‘The origin of the Moon within a terrestrial synestia’, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 123(4), pp. 910-951. The paper that proves the establishment had to invent a completely new theoretical structure (a vaporised synestia donut) because the standard glancing-blow collision model mathematically failed.
Melosh, H.J. (2014) ‘New approaches to the Moon’s isotopic crisis’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 372(2024), p. 20130168. A very clear establishment admission that the identical chemical makeup of the Earth and Moon has created a ‘crisis’ for gravitational formation models.
Pahlevan, K. and Stevenson, D.J. (2007) ‘Equilibration in the aftermath of the lunar-forming giant impact’, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 262(3-4), pp. 438-449. Highlights the extreme difficulty of explaining how the Earth and Moon could share perfectly mixed chemistry in the ‘vacuum’ of space following a chaotic impact. Thanks guys, never would have figured that out ourselves.
Rufu, R., Aharonson, O. and Perets, H.B. (2017) ‘A multiple-impact origin for the Moon’, Nature Geoscience, 10(2), pp. 89-94. Demonstrates the fractured consensus within the establishment; this team argues the single ‘Giant Impact’ fails entirely, suggesting the Moon was formed by a sequence of smaller, random strikes instead. More nonsense and more attempts to save the phenomena but okay, at least they admit the illogicality of the giant asteroid theory.
Zhang, J., Dauphas, N., Davis, A.M., Leya, I. and Fedkin, A. (2012) ‘The proto-Earth as a significant source of lunar material’, Nature Geoscience, 5(4), pp. 251-255. Provides the titanium isotope data proving the Moon’s material is entirely terrestrial, effectively dealing a fatal blow to the idea that an alien planet (Theia) makes up the Moon’s mass.
Alfvén, H. (1981) Cosmic Plasma. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company. Alfvén won the Nobel Prize in Physics for his foundational work on magneto-hydrodynamics (the study of magnetic fields in electrically conducting fluids). In this text, he explicitly critiques the standard astrophysical community for ignoring the electrical nature of space. He argues that the universe is overwhelmingly made of plasma and must be modeled using electrical circuits, rather than relying solely on gravity and empty vacuums.
Birkeland, K. (1908) The Norwegian Aurora Polaris Expedition 1902-1903. Christiania: H. Aschehoug & Co. Kristian Birkeland was the first scientist to theorise that the Earth’s auroras were powered by massive electrical currents flowing from space directly into the atmosphere. The scientific establishment of his time largely dismissed him, insisting space was an empty vacuum. Decades later, with the advent of satellites, mainstream science was forced to admit he was right and now calls these circuits “Birkeland Currents.”
Scott, D.E. (2006) The Electric Sky: A Challenge to the Myths of Modern Astronomy. Portland: Mikamar Publishing. Dr. Donald Scott, a retired professor of electrical engineering, provides a comprehensive audit of modern astronomy. He specifically targets the mathematical leaps of the Standard Model (like the invention of dark matter) and argues that the anomalies observed in space including the behavior of plasma fields around planets, are best explained by classical electrical engineering and plasma physics, rather than theoretical gravitational math and geometric hand-waving.
Great article, thanks for this and for the humour. I watched the Aldrin punch up clip and chuckled, because the only person who would punch someone when asked to swear on a bible, is a guilty one.
You state that the Earth is not reflective and that the Moon is. Now obviously the Moon is reflective, we can see it, this is observed proof. But if we discount NASA's fraudulent photos there is zero evidence that the Earth is reflective other than that which we see, yet scientism states clearly that the Earth's albedo is almost exactly double that of the Moon. Were that so, during the day, at least to my simple logic, everywhere would appear almost incandescent to the naked eye. Then if you factor in the inverse square law and the supposed distance of 238,000 miles the moon would have many times the albedo of this planet, yet Google, AI et al say no, it's only half. Something doesn't add up. Again, an excellent post.