THE UNIVERSE EXPLAINED


THE CLEMENTS THEORY (2009)


(Another Point of View)

    

    I am sure you have looked up into the night sky at the stars and wondered "where did they all come from"? You might then have wondered about the Universe, how it all started, when it started and how old is it? How much longer will it last? Many have tried to explain The Universe but this time that goal is achieved. It is a realisation of how simple it really is. Well, read on!

    The author does not apologise for constantly stating the painfully obvious within this paper. This paper is, hopefully, presented in a manner that can be understood by anyone who is interested in the subject and cares to read it, regardless of their level of education on the subject matter. Within this paper there are many words or statements in BOLD face, commonly regarded on the internet as shouting. That is chat room etiquette but this is a serious paper, not a chat room, so the author hopes you see the necessity to embolden some parts. This paper has been written because the author saw that many who are working on this subject seem to have lost the plot. They can no longer see the wood for the trees. It is time for another point of view. This paper has been prepared using only two of the most basic of tools available to man, namely, observation (of what nature shows us) and evaluation of that observation using simple logic, whilst maintaining an observation of the laws of Physics and Chemistry, which the author believes will apply anywhere in the universe. The object was to create in plain English a working model of this Universe which we live in that will fully explain it from it's origin to its end.


Natural Cycles


    Whenever we observe nature it becomes obvious that nature works in cycles or circles, NOT straight lines. Straight lines do not occur naturally, they were invented by mankind. They allow us to measure, construct buildings etc. Nature is not like that. The author has never seen a square leaf, or a tree with a square trunk. Within a natural cycle the circle might be an ellipse (a squashed circle). Natural cycles have a lifetime which allows one cycle to contain any number of sub cycles. Natural cycles also usually have 2 equal and opposite parts which take turns in enjoying dominance. One is usually displaying positive tendencies and the other negative tendencies. For instance, 1 day and one revolution of the earth, midnight to midnight, and within this the 2 phases of dominance are night and day. Daytime is positive, it is light and warm, people are up and doing something constructive whilst at night they sleep thus doing nothing and night is therefore negative. The next cycle is 1 year containing 365 daily cycles, once round the sun, new years day to new years day, the 2 phases of dominance being summer and winter. In this cycle summer is positive, plants grow, animals reproduce and so on,whilst winter, when plants do not grow and animals hibernate, is negative. If we start AT ANY POINT on the natural cycle and travel round the outside edge we will ALWAYS return to the start point. Observing Mother Nature, we can see that the most complex thing that we currently know within our universe is animal life. Given this complexity, it still starts with only 2 cells which are equal and opposite, the female egg which is static (not unlike Gravity) sitting there waiting to consume the male sperm, (not unlike Energy), dynamic and unresting until it searches out and finds the egg. The marvel is the complexity of life as the specialist parts, eyes, organs etc. that develop from the constant division of cells. If this is Mother Natures way, then surely the universe must obey similar rules EXCEPT the division is instant, coming from the Big Bang!  



Varying time in a Natural cycle


    Natural cycles cannot be broken. Some of them can be varied in their lifetime scale but never broken. Quite obviously, we cannot make a day longer or shorter than it is BUT, we invented British Summertime to assist bomber command in the second world war. The cycle remains at 24 hours duration, we just alter our clocks so we get up an hour earlier, thus pinching an extra hour of daylight, so everyone conforms to a one hour shift in time for a few months and then back again to their normal working day. So far, we have not yet altered the time scale of a year but every four years we have a leap year just to even out the mathematical difference between the number of twenty four hour periods in one year and the real length of a year, 365 and one quarter days. There is more discussion on time variance within a natural cycle in the addenda section.


Rules and Laws


    Within science we have laws which have been established by experimentation to prove them. Within laws we have rules which protect the integrity of the law. The rules are applied and adhered to within the experimentation process to ensure we do not contaminate the process and, therefore, the result. Within nature we almost always see the exception which breaks the law or the rule but, by doing so, confirms the law or the rule. The laws of physics may not be the same elsewhere in the Universe as they are here on Earth, however the author believes that they are. The laws of physics and chemistry are fundamental when dealing with mass, but before the formation of mass, they cannot apply! Within The Clements Theory (2009), exceptions may be cited which appear to prove the theory, but will be fully explained. The explanation of the formation of mass uses only logic and observation of natures way of working.


The Hawking Universe


    Stephen Hawking says he cannot understand why Gravity is so weak in comparison to the other forces. If he had seen the Universe is as described herein, he would have seen that he held the answer to his own question. In his excellent book “A Brief History of Time” he makes the suggestion that time appears linear to us because we enjoy so little of it in our lifetime. Time, within the life of the Universal natural cycle according to The Clements Theory (2009), is really a circle or an ellipse. Mr. Hawking was right about time not being linear and, if he had seen from that the true natural cycle of the Universe, he would have seen that gravity appears to be so weak because he is viewing it at its least dominant point. 

    On the strength of Mr Hawkings comments on time NOT being linear, the American Government of the day put $50M into a think tank to see if they could discuss and come up with some basic rules that might govern the possibility of travelling in time at some point in the future. Well, the author knows, from the laws of nature, we can send a manned flight to the moon and back but to go further depends on one thing, the lifespan of man! The time it would take to go to Pluto would see our astronaut dead before he got there. Surely the same laws would apply in time travel. Rules? Certainly, nobody could go back beyond the point at which he was born and could not go forward beyond the point of their death. The travel would be confined to pure tourism as nobody could have any influence on events yet to happen, but what would be the result if we saw what tomorrow may bring? ALL time travellers would become immensely rich on their return, using the knowledge of what they had just seen. Worse than this, we could all see the date, time and manner of our own death. THAT is a major motive for most of those who saw this to try to change things! This ensures the author to conclude that travel in time is never likely to be achievable! Notwithstanding the comments herein, the author is watching with immense interest, the news from CERN regards particles appearing to have travelled at a speed in EXCESS of Constant! The author will be waiting to hear what the outcome of the investigations into this are and, then, what the academics think about the possibility of time travel because of this.


The 4th Dimension Universe


    There has been talk of considering other dimensions to explain what triggered the big bang. A Cambridge based physicist suggests that a 4th dimension bumped into another of the dimensions and that caused the big bang.  The 3 dimensions we know are left and right, up and down and forward and back. We can all comprehend 3 dimensions because we see and use them every day and that is BASIC and LOGICAL! The only fourth dimension which has a profound effect on the Universe is TIME, which, in Universe terms, is fully discussed in this paper! 


THE CLEMENTS UNIVERSE


    It MUST be obvious to anyone that The Universe IS NOT MAN MADE! Therefore it must be a thing of nature. If a natural occurrence then it must obey a natural cycle. The Universe cycle consists of 2 basic things. They are ENERGY which is dynamic (sometimes explosive) and therefore positive and GRAVITY which is implosive and therefore negative. BUT WHAT ABOUT MASS you might ask? Mass is ephemeral as opposed to basic within the heart of this Universe. If the time elapsed since the big bang is ACCURATELY calculated as 13.73 billion years, and the calculation of 4.7 billion years for the age of the Earth is also accurate, then there is 9.03 billion years without mass IF Earth was the first mass to form which is unlikely! We can certainly count on over 1 billion years without any mass at all, NOT EVEN PARTICLES! Now let us consider the 2 main ingredients of the Universe individually.



Energy


    Energy is a dynamic and, SOMETIMES, explosive force and therefore positive. That which is not gravity is energy and can be found in many different forms such as radiation, heat, light etc. but it is all part of the sum total of energy found in the Universe. We normally cannot see it, touch it or taste it but we do use it. Our Sun gives us radiation, light and heat. We can feel heat but not taste it and we see the results of heat but we do not see heat itself. This also applies to radiation. We all have seen the natural power of Electricity in thunder storms. We can “generate” electricity, use it or store it in batteries for later use. We can feel an electric shock but we cannot see electricity, only the effect of it in a storm. Can we taste it? If we hold a battery to our tongue with both contacts touching the tongue, we feel the tingle and it tastes metallic. Is that the electricity we taste OR the 2 metal contacts OR the taste of the metal the electricity is stored in inside the battery? Within the Universe there is a finite sum total quantity of energy. OH NO THERE ISN'T you cry. We generate electricity! No we do not. We convert another form of energy into electricity because we know how to store, distribute and use electricity. If we use a running river to produce hydro electricity, we merely convert the energy inherent in running water into electricity. In a coal fired power station we convert the energy trapped within the coal to drive the generator to produce electricity. Therefore, we do not fundamentally alter the gross amount of energy in the Universe.


Gravity


    Gravity is much like magnetism. Gravity is an IMPLOSIVE force in that it wants to absorb its surroundings. Once these surroundings are absorbed they are converted into their basic state which is either gravity or energy. Gravity is negative in that it is a consumer! Whatever it consumes is converted back into gravity, thus the gravity centre will become more intense (it's power would be increased by what it absorbs) and thus more dense, possibly "heavier" (weight is the resistance to gravity) due to the increase in density and certainly SMALLER due to the implosive nature of gravity!  We cannot see it, feel it or taste it, so research is limited. As with energy, there is a finite quantity of gravity in the Universe. The strength of gravity is associated with heat, the hotter it is, the stronger it is. Gravity cannot solidify or change state if it is pure, thus "unallocated" 100% pure gravity, wherever it is found in the universe, may correspond to what science calls "dark matter" should it cool down. It will not be seen, will be difficult to detect, will be very weak but it will be there.


    Gravity is associated with extremely high temperature. If we are to believe the big bang, then there must have been a “Singularity” at the point of the bang. There was. All the contents of the universe were contained in 1 BIG BLACK HOLE (The Singularity)! A black hole is a gravity centre that is large enough and therefore strong enough that anything that goes into it cannot escape because the gravity centre is too strong, even light cannot escape, hence the name black hole. To discuss the formation of the Universe we must distinguish between black holes and gravity centres. They are both gravity centres but where the author speaks of a gravity centre he is referring to a gravity centre smaller than a black hole. A gravity centre is not large enough and, therefore, not strong enough to resist the escape of heat, light or energy but a black hole is! The fundamental difference is that a gravity centre WILL COOL DOWN but a black hole will not!

    Because gravity is most likely to be the major base of all mass, moreso than any energy type, can it be captured? Yes, it is captured by the skin of mass which we call Earth. Can we take a sample? Not, as yet, to my knowledge. How could we capture pure gravity? In my opinion we could only do this when it has no power, i.e. at absolute zero which means we get it from space where absolute zero IS the standard tyemperature. To do this we must construct containers with a self regulating temperature of absolute zero. As we have only ever reached -273.1499, (.0001 ABOVE absolute zero), capture of gravity in such a container is our first experiment. If the raising of the temperature of gravity by .0001 degrees K makes it disappear, it proves the relationship between gravities power and temperature. It is my thought that pure gravity at any temperature is not containable because it would be re-absorbed into such container. IF there is a couple of degrees leeway before it is re-absorbed, this is our only chance of conducting any experiments on pure gravity.


The Vacuum


    Firstly, the Universe is a Vacuum which contains the 2 main constituents. The vacuum is most important and is not counted as a part of the Universe as a vacuum is NOTHING. To explain, if we are confronted with a burning oil well we have a big problem, how to put it out! We use the laws of physics and chemistry to put it out by preparing an explosive charge, placing it on a trellis, then, using a radio controlled tractor, move the trellis right next to the fire and then detonate it. An explosion forces EVERYTHING away from the centre of the bang, EVEN THE AIR around it, thus creating a vacuum. That means no oxygen. No oxygen means NO BURN! Thus the fire is out. The time frame for the vacuum bubble to expand away from the epicentre of the explosion is probably 2 or 3 seconds of expansion but, because of the pressure of the Earth's atmosphere, it only takes, at a guess, 1/100th of a second for the vacuum to disappear again. This is because the vacuum bubble is trying to expand against an outside resistance. If there were no atmospheric pressure how far would the vacuum bubble expand and for how long? This question can also be applied to the Universe. The fact that the Universe is a vacuum is also confirmation to the author that the start of the Universal cycle is, most definitely a big bang.

    The importance of the vacuum is that things can travel through it without any resistance. The Apollo rocket that went to the moon burnt fuel to escape the Earth's atmosphere but then turned off the engines. It travelled to the moon on it's impetus from the velocity of it's escape from the Earth's atmosphere. In this way it had just enough fuel to fire the engines and slow down when it reached the moons gravitational field. It also had enough fuel to escape the moons gravitational field and most importantly, enough fuel to control the re-entry to the Earth's atmosphere. If space were not a vacuum, there would be resistance to anything that moved in it. Under those conditions, Apollo would have had to burn fuel all the way to the moon, making the trip under current technology, impossible, it could never carry enough fuel. Thus, we understand the ability of anything to travel through the vacuum unimpeded!


Mass and State Within Mass


    Before the author explains the real nature of mass, where it comes from and how it forms he would like to talk about STATE. There are many forms of mass. Within mass, there are also natural states. On Earth we have the forms of mass known as elements and which are listed in the periodic table. Some are gasses, some liquids, some are solids and some are crystals, being another form of their respective solid. These are the natural states they are found in ON THIS EARTH! There may be elements not found on Earth but which might be found elsewhere in the universe. The normal Earth states can be written in a vertical column in descending order, which is:    

GAS

LIQUID

BEC

SOLID 

CRYSTAL

   The above list contains BEC (Bose Einstein Condensate) which will be discussed shortly. This order, apart from the BEC,  is established because of the laws of physics. To reduce a gas to a liquid we must remove temperature, usually under very high pressure. Most liquids can be reduced to their solid state just by the removal of temperature. Reduction from the SOLID state is where it changes. Whilst some chemical crystals can be grown in a saturated solution at room temperature, things like artificial diamonds are produced by INTRODUCING VERY HIGH TEMPERATURES under EXTREME PRESSURE. To change the state of a substance involves EITHER the addition or removal of HEAT (energy)! This change plays a big part when we discuss the natural cycle of the Universe. 

    The one extra item in the above list is the BEC (Bose Einstein Condensate). This we are just beginning to understand. It was discovered when liquefying helium by supercooling it under extreme pressure. Once in liquid form the helium gave the appearance of boiling. When it was taken to within 4/100ths of a degree above absolute zero (-273.15 degrees C) it appeared to stop boiling and went calm. Also, at this point, it seeped through the bottom of the container that it was in. It clearly displayed properties that were quite unexpected and very unusual. BECS have now been created at MIT in America using ribidium gas and elsewhere using sodium in its gas form. The Clements Theory (2009) believes that a BEC is the natural state of the interface between EVERY liquid and solid. The exception to this is when a solid becomes a gas WITHOUT reverting back to liquid form first, such as dry ice. 

    When we melt lead for industrial use, time is money, so we overheat it to melt it as quickly as possible. IF we know the EXACT melting point of lead to, say, 20 decimal places, and we were capable of applying heat so accurately controlled as to reach each decimal place in turn and stop to observe, it is the authors opinion that we would see the BEC state. It is unlikely, at this time, that we can build an apparatus so accurate as to verify this, but if we could, we would have the proof. The Clements Theory (2009) is that EVERY mass has its own BEC right at the point in between liquid and solid but it lasts for such a short time (maybe 1 millionth of a second) that we can never see it. This is an area ripe for research, as the unusual properties of those BECS that we have seen suggest many applications if we can create BECS at will and maintain them in the BEC state. The laws of state are paramount to explaining the BEC and the Universe. 

    This nicely leads us to the finish of the discussion of state. Think of your garden pond in winter. When it gets cold enough it may freeze over. Once the ice has formed it actually protects the water underneath the ice from further freezing by sheltering it from the wintry conditions that caused the freeze. Only in Siberian type conditions will the layer of ice keep thickening. So we have above the ice a chill factor and a freezing atmosphere, then we have the ice and, underneath the ice, we have water that is slightly warmer than the ice because of the protection of that ice. THIS IS HOW NATURE WORKS and will apply later in this paper. If we apply time to state then the chart might look like this:



Gravity and Energy

Particles found in The Standard Model

Protons, Neutrons and Electrons

Atoms

GAS

LIQUID

BEC

SOLID 

CRYSTAL

Gravity and Energy


This is the progression of the formation of mass from the big bang. From G and E to gas would have been 9 to 10 Billion years, as we are told the Earth is 4.3 Billion years old. Now you might get a feel for how long it takes a body to lose heat by radiation in a vacuum. As the smaller particles form, they are in a "soup" around the body they are formed from and might look like "plasma" through a telescope. As heat is lost the ability for the "soup" to be sufficiently liquid is lost, hence the formation of the larger particles from the smaller ones. I might suggest that the particles from The Standard Model will all be different percentags of G and E which will give them their different properties. As Protons, Neutrons and Electrons are formed I might suggest that anything which has a combined amount of Gravity in excess of 55% will be a Proton, between 45% and 55% will be a Neutron and under 45% will be an Electron. Obviously no time scale can be given to Gas to Crystal as we do not know when the Earth will end. Again, we do not know the timescale for Crystal to Gravity and Energy. From the top, Energy has been dominant BUT once we go past Crystal, we have no idea of the power of Gravity. I believe it is much more violent and devastating than we can imagine. This change will take place once the universe stops expanding. At that point, when all big bang impetus has been exhausted, the power of the black holes will be dominant. They will absorb ALL mass in their respective gravity fields, converting it back into G and E. The last part will be the bigger black holes "eating" the smaller ones until there is only one left, which is the Singularity ready to go BANG and form the next universe.



The Clements Theory (2009)


    The author wants you to imagine if you can, the Singularity, a giant ball of gravity which is at it's most dominant and has entrapped within it all the energy in the Universe. It will be a good few million (or billion) degrees in temperature and with inward pressures of a few trillion tonnes per square millimetre, impossible to really imagine, but it could be only the size of a golf ball! There is NO MASS WHATSOEVER, not even PARTICLES! We only have GRAVITY and ENERGY. The energy is trapped within the gravitational pull BUT it really wants to break out so the mix is extremely volatile! Because of all the interaction between the energy wanting to escape and the gravity wanting to contain it the whole of the singularity is a giant soup of movement. This movement will cause polarity to develop and gravity will have a greater affinity to polarity than energy as it will want to contain it. We will then have a NORTH and a SOUTH to the singularity which will be predominantly gravity. This leaves most of the energy in the middle! Birds of a feather? Yes the energy is happy to stick together. So we have a solid top and a solid bottom of gravity, with all that energy in a big lump in the middle. Under unimaginable pressure and in temperatures a couple of million times hotter than the sun! Do you not think that that is a recipe for instability? The author does! The combination of the pressure and temperature would make the energy more likely to be explosive and all it needs is one weak point ( probably around the middle where all the energy is). It would be just like a car tyre that had been damaged against a kerb, it would blow at the weakest point. The fourth dimension, TIME,  added to the above scenario gave us the big bang! Mother Nature's laws had it covered all along!


BANG!


    At the point of the big bang the vacuum it created expanded away from the bang epicentre. Within the vacuum were the billions of fragments of the Singularity, most importantly, of vastly varying sizes! As these gravity centres escaped from the ground zero of the big bang, after a billion or so years, they started to cool down and they eventually slowed down. First of all, we must question the slowing down. We know that, energy must be renewed to maintain it's power (turn off the electricity supply and the light goes out). BUT, this was ONE BIG BANG, no renewal, so the only force is the original impulse energy driving the expansion. If that expansion was in another vacuum then there would never be any resistance and, just like our Apollo rocket, it would carry on indefinitely. We DO BELIEVE, however, that the rate of expansion is slowing down, SO, the author believes that the Universe is expanding against an outside resistance (like the vacuum bubble that extinguished the oil well fire). Given this, it is likely that eventually the expansion will stop altogether, at which point the outside resistance will become dominant over the Universe in just the same way as the Earth's atmosphere became dominant over our fire extinguishing vacuum bubble! There is also the likelihood that at the centre of the Universe there is a large black hole. At the time of the bang it is highly conceivable that some of the gravity centres collided and they would have combined. Above the critical size this would truly be a black hole and, at it's size, it would have considerable influence, even to the extent of eventually containing the extent of the expansion. This black hole would probably be the basis of the next singularity!

    Within our observations of natural cycles we have seen the 2 equal and opposites each enjoy a time of dominance which are opposed. Night is 12 hours away from midday, winter is 6 months away from midsummer etc. In the Universe cycle GRAVITY gradually ascends from the era of mass to its dominance BUT, as it contains all the energy under conditions not compatible with the nature of energy, gravity holds ultimate power over the entrapped energy and, therefore, triggers IMMEDIATELY the dominance of energy at the point of the big bang. This is clearly unlike all the other natural cycles of nature we know BUT what the author has described is supported by the laws of physics! In the Universal natural cycle the dominance of BOTH constituents is at the SAME MOMENT. After the big bang gravity is diminishing in it's power because it is fragmented and also cooling down so we could say that from bang to mass the ENERGY part of the cycle is dominant! It will be shown that after the cessation of expansion, GRAVITY is dominant.

    Now we must address the formation of mass. It took quite a long time before there was even any particles formed. Why? Most of the gravity centres were not large enough to continue keeping their entrapped energy. The only ones that were, are seen in the Universe as black holes. Those that were smaller than black hole size began to lose energy and heat. Remember your garden pond, where once ice had formed it protected the underlying water from freezing? As the gravity centres moved away from the epicentre of the big bang they lost heat but that heat was contained around the gravity centre, a bit like the atmosphere is contained around the Earth, and acted as a barrier to further heat loss. Therefore, the time it took for the gravity centres to lose enough heat to allow the formation of particles was quite extended. You now must begin to see that mass is ONLY A FROZEN MIXTURE OF ENERGY AND GRAVITY!

    Considering the laws of physics and chemistry, we know that we can mine iron ore. We can refine it and work it into a shape BUT it is brittle as well as it is hard and strong. If we used pure iron to make, say, railway tracks, the tracks would snap the minute you put an engine on them. If we contaminate that iron with as little as half a percent of carbon, we get mild steel. This is as strong as iron BUT it is ductile. This means that our railway track can flex without breaking so an engine will sit on the track without breaking the rail. Look at stainless steels. Twelve percent Chromium makes steel stainless but still magnetic, 18% Chromium and 8% Nickel makes it stainless, heat resistant and non magnetic. This demonstrates our ability to mix and match different elements to achieve the desired result but, in the case of mild steel even a MINUTE QUANTITY of a foreign material can have the most drastic effect on the properties of the finished product. This basic law of chemistry lies at the heart of the formation of mass. The formation process is that the Energy and Gravity mix, on cooling will form particles which will then form atoms which will then create the elements in their gas state. On further cooling the gasses condense into liquids and solids and this is how new planets and stars are formed. The Hubble telescope has provided excellent pictures of this occurring.

    Within an atom there are 3 main particles, protons, neutrons and electrons. Protons and neutrons stick together, whilst electrons revolve around the proton/neutron nucleus in an orbit. Within a gravity centre we have only gravity and energy until, with the onset of cooling, the basic particles asdescribed in the Standard Model are formed. The author believes that it is purely the percentage mix of gravity and energy of a sub particle that determines what type of sub particle is formed. Thes sub particles then combine to form protons, neutrons and electrons. Protons probably have a high gravity content and low energy content. Neutrons will have a near equal mix of gravity and energy and electrons will be higher in energy content than gravity, hence the reason that they are dynamic whilst the other 2 are static. Further, the differences of the exact percentage mix of gravity and energy at the time of formation would explain all the particles seen in The Standard Model. So now we have a particle soup, with particles all doing the “birds of a feather” thing and looking for like particles. This is the basis of the formation of atoms and, ultimately, the formation of the elements.

    The slight variations of the percentage energy content within a proton would mean that some protons attract other similar protons but would repel dissimilar protons ( a proton of 80% gravity and 20% energy would be attracted to another just the same but probably repelled by one that was 75% gravity and 25% energy). The number of protons within an atom determines what element type it is! Within the periodic table Hydrogen has an atomic weight of 1, hence an atom of Hydrogen has 1 proton in it. Oxygen has an atomic weight of 8 so it has 8 protons per atom. So, within the particle soup, as some protons stick with others and some are isolated, we can see how the atoms of the various elements are formed. When the soup is cold enough to have all the particles now combined as atoms, and the “birds of a feather” principle continues, we see like atoms attracting other like atoms and repelling all dissimilar atoms and eventually the soup is now an element soup. We can demonstrate the “like seeking like” process from looking at our Earth. If you want gold you look in Alaska, California, South Africa and Australia. Nickel is found in Canada and Australia. Tungsten is found in Russia. Please bear in mind that these elements are also found elsewhere on Earth BUT not in deposits large enough to be commercially mined. The point is that, because we see certain areas that are rich in one element but not another LIKE SEEKING LIKE is obvious! This sorting out of particles is the immediate forerunner to the condensation where, because of the extremely high temperatures involved all mass forms as its gas. Solid and liquid mass only takes it's natural form (as we see it) as the temperature drops.

    The transition from pure gravity through particles and then atoms to tangible mass is likely to be a couple of billion years, so we could possibly believe that from the big bang to the first particles took at least 1 billion years. This figure is hypothetical as it is based on the believed age of the Earth but it should be apparent that the Universe was some billion(s) of years without even a particle of mass. Given this working model, the guys at CERN, are looking for the Higgs Boson (the glue that holds the particles of an atom together). It has been suggested that CERN will create black holes, however the author believes that these will be very small gravity centres as they would never reach the size of a true black hole!  THAT WOULD GO A LONG WAY TO PROVING THIS THEORY! The collision of protons under the conditions at CERN will hopefully break down the protons to their basic constituents. This is where the CERN guys hope to see the Higgs Boson. Should they find only energy and gravity they have proved this theory! Similarly, if they find, on cooling, mass forms which have no connection to Helium (where the protons are from), then again they have proved a lot of what is said here! We do have to realise, however, that IF a gravity centre can be created and IF it can be contained, the introduced and quite artificial freezing may have a totally different result from that expected because of the time factor. A “fast freeze” may not be the same thing as a long slow freeze. Just think of cooking, where a stew can be made in a pan but it never tastes as good as when it is done over a 9 hour spell in a slow cooker! The length of time taken to cool may be a decisive factor in the end result.

    Now for the quest for the illusive Higgs Boson! Let us look at how nature works. When a bitch has a litter of pups she keeps them all together in the litter. If one strays she picks it up by the scruff of its neck and puts it back in the litter. When they are all together she is in control and can nurture them, that's what mothers do in nature. Gravity, as the mother of the particles, keeps them together. They are surrounded by mother gravity. As they continue to cool down and gather with their like particles, the only thing available to stick them together is gravity. It does seem most likely that gravity IS the Higgs Boson! It is, after all, the natural glue of the Universe!

    Every planet, comet etc., ANY MASS in the Universe has GRAVITY at its centre. The tangible mass on the outside is to gravity as ice is to water! Having seen how individual pieces of mass came to be. Now we must consider the order of the Universe. The Universe consists of Galaxies. These are clusters of mass that employ the “like seeking like” OR a Galaxy is such because of some other influence. Remember those black holes? Every Galaxy has one. They are the most powerful gravity centres and they are quite likely to influence the system for a large area around them. Their power of attraction extends to the edge of the Galaxy that they are in. Should we find a Galaxy with more than 1 black hole, then the largest will be dominant.

    This may explain our Sun. It has enough power to hold together the solar system. The Sun appears to be a gravity centre that was the exception to the rule. It is too large to have frozen and become a massive planet but, also, just too small to be a true black hole. It could be likened to a BEC, almost like an interface between a gravity centre and a black hole! Does it attract gaseous matter? Does it absorb this gas and convert it to gravity?  BUT, it is not strong enough to contain the energy released in the conversion process. That is why we enjoy light, heat and radiation from it. We also know that it finds some of this gas to be too dissimilar to be of use. We have observed a stream of gas being emitted from the Sun. We know this because it has charged ions which allow us to observe the phenomenon. Most gasses are not visible so we would have to find another way to prove that our Sun was indeed attracting and absorbing gaseous matter. Every time it absorbs more gas, it gets stronger. In time it may get strong enough to strip the Earth's atmosphere and absorb it. Of course this will only happen after the end of the expansion of the Universe. At this point, the Sun would have grown in strength to be a true black hole, so no more heat, light and radiation! The only other alternative is that, because it is losing light and heat by radiation, maybe it is slowly on its way to becoming a very large planet!

    Now let us consider the business of gravity being negative and a consumer. Our Earth spins on the axis between North and South which gives us 1 day every revolution. It also spins in an orbit round the Sun which gives us a year. To spin on its axis without wobbling it must have total equilibrium! It must have equilibrium to maintain a correct orbit around the Sun. YES, the Sun has a major influence BUT a lack of balance within the Earth would fight against that influence and we would see each year vary in the number of days within it because of variations in the Earth's course making it take a longer or shorter route to complete one circuit of the Sun. So, how is equilibrium maintained? Our Earth has gravity at it's centre. That gravity is in it's natural state and VERY HOT! If it were to re-absorb a tiny part of the mass surrounding it, say 2000 tonnes, there will be a release of some energy because of that process. Bearing in mind that the Earth's gravity is too small to be a black hole, it cannot contain that energy!  Maybe this is why our volcanoes, having lain dormant for years, will suddenly erupt! They are purely a safety valve for pressure release! Also, if this were happening, there would be a small shift in the equilibrium of the surrounding mass. Is that what triggers an earthquake! The business of the Earth's mass sliding along the tectonic plates is only sufficient movement of the Earth's crust as is needed to reset the equilibrium and maintain stability. Whilst the author appreciates that the vulcanologists and the seismologists know their subject, he proposes that the above is the trigger mechanism that explains the bottom line of WHY we have earthquakes and volcanic eruptions.

    All right, but what about asteroids and Halley's Comet? Yes there are fragments of mass, possibly the result of some collision or, maybe, explosion, too small to be planets but large enough to maintain as mass. They too MUST have some gravity at their centre or they would most likely break up. The author does believe that the working model he has presented gives adequate explanation for these exceptions such as Halley's. Remember our discussion in the section on the vacuum of why the Apollo spacecraft was viable because of the vacuum? And we have just mentioned NASA'S sending of many probes into space. Well, the probes sent to the outer reaches of the solar system have a LONG way to go! The means of getting them there is to use the gravitatiional field on the moon. A spacecraft going to, say, Saturn will be shot to the moon. There it just skims inside the Moon's gravitational field enough to change its direction. It is so little into the gravitational field that it actually skips off it and is hurtled back into space at enhanced speed. It is a slingshot effect. In reality, the slingshot effect will be achieved in the same way as described but using the gravitational field of a larger planet in the solar system.

    Should a small piece of mass be moving almost within the influence of a black hole, the likelihood is that it will succumb and be absorbed. IF, however, the face of the black hole nearest that piece of mass is SOUTH dominant and that mass's leading face is SOUTH dominant and it is NOT QUITE YET within the area of control exercised by the black hole, the combination of that mass's impetus and the polarity similarity coming face to face (2 like poles repel one another) might make that mass skip off the outer edge of the black holes territory just as our space probe skips off the Moons gravitational field. In this way, a comet is born and it would have increased impetus AND, the effect of the near miss would bend its trajectory. This would have the effect of imposing a large arc to that trajectory. As long as there is nothing in its way, it would follow that trajectory forever on it's initial impetus, just like Halley's Comet, because there is NO RESISTANCE in space, and the trajectory would ultimately become an orbit! Yet another natural cycle! 

    OKAY, getting back to gravity, where is the proof that gravity is such a consumer? If all mass came from gravity, it is not unreasonable to believe that it will return to gravity just as ice reverts back to water when it is warm enough. We are not yet at the point in the Universal cycle for gravity to start becoming dominant, BUT, the exception to the rule that both proves and makes the rule comes into play now. NASA has sent out many probes, one of which is MESSENGER. This probe was sent to study Mercury, the planet nearest to the Sun. The data it has sent back tells us that the planet is mostly molten iron. The surface is covered with active volcanoes, all of them spewing out molten iron onto the surface. The probe also tells us that Mercury is SHRINKING IN SIZE! We are told that Mercury is cooling down which is why it is shrinking, BUT, is the Sun cooling down, SURELY NOT? Is Mercury moving away from the Sun, SURELY NOT? As Mercury is surrounded by a vacuum (space), so the only way it can lose heat EXTERNALLY is by radiation! Mercury, therefore, might possibly only cool down on its surface if the gravity centre was increasing in strength, and was responsible for absorbing the external heat as it strengthens. All of this suggests that the gravity inside Mercury is doing exactly what the author has proposed and is inwardly re-converting the mass into gravity. Why would it do this out of the time sequence? BECAUSE it is so close to the Sun that the temperature required for gravity to be strong enough to begin the absorption back into gravity of its own mass has been met! The exception that proves the rule. If Mercury continues to shrink over the next two decades, then this might be taken as a small piece of the proof needed to advance The Clements Theory (2009) as highly credible! Should you wish to read one of the many articles on this you may go to  Messenger  and then click on the return arrow to come back to The Universe Explained.

    Now, to continue with the Universal cycle, if the end of expansion came, say, after 14.5 billion years, it does not necessarily follow that it would take an equal amount of time to arrive back at the next big bang. Remember the time cycle of our fire extinguisher vacuum? It may only take a few hundred, thousand or million years to get back to the beginning. This all depends on the external resistance outside the boundaries of the Universal vacuum. What is it? How strong is it? At the point of no further expansion, that resistance becomes dominant over the Universe and, therefore may well exert a profound influence over it, ensuring that the expansion will be reversed. If there is no external resistance then the only other possibility is the influence of the big black hole which was a leftover from the big bang.

    Now the Universe may well go into contraction. Galaxies might collide causing the break up of mass into smaller pieces more easily converted back into gravity and, as it is, immense amounts of temperature and energy will be released (think of the atom bomb). Thus, with gravity absorbing this energy and heat, gravity might increase in strength (this is its dominant phase) and might continue to unfreeze its own mass and convert it back into what it came from. This should ultimately create black holes from the amalgamation of the defunct gravity centres. The strong shall eat the weak (natures way) and larger black holes might consume smaller black holes until, ultimately, the last 2 black holes combine and we have the next singularity ready for the next big -->


BANG!

    And there you have it. The author feels comfortable with this. It is so simple, very little to go wrong. It appears to add up and also looks to work, in short, it is logical, observes the way nature works and is within the known laws of Physics and Chemistry. It appears to answer many of the questions that others have posed and the author has considered. All and every intelligent criticism is welcomed as this would show that there is interest in this work. The author is hoping that just a small few of those who are up and coming in physics might read this theory and realise that there is so much potential for it to be accurate. The author has the hope that just one or two of these future stars of Physics will research down the path suggested by The Clements Theory (2009). The author will be dead and gone before any good may come from this work but he still has the hope that somewhere down the line, he did mankind some good. 

Summary and Conclusions

    In conclusion, the Universe is a natural cycle and, as such, will go from one BIG BANG to the next, therefore it is infinity! Due to the randomness of an explosion there is no likelihood that any 2 Universes will ever be EXACTLY the same, therefore all the Universes together one after another will be a chain of infinities! As a natural cycle, there are only 2 base units, equal and opposite, which are Energy and Gravity and therefore ALL MASS, when totally reduced beyond the atom, beyond the particle will be just that.


Addenda

EXPLANATIONS


    In this document there is a reference to CERN. This is the name of an establishment in Switzerland where physicists have built, at a cost of 6 Billion British pounds the Hadron Super Collider. Here they are going to accelerate protons to just under the speed of light before smashing them into one another. Their stated aim is to “recreate conditions just after the big bang”. They also freely admit they do not know the likely outcome, they are doing it to find out. The CERN project has given us so much during its development, not least of which is the internet! They are also looking for the Higgs Boson, which is the glue that holds particles together to form an atom, but the author does believe he has given them a clue as to what the Higgs Boson really is. The author does wish the guys at CERN the very best of luck and sends his hopes for their success. He will be watching with immense interest. 

    The reference to our Sun being of a size just in between what can cool to form a star and what is just big enough to stay as a black hole is NOT a definition of exact size! This "in between" size will vary from galaxy to galaxy as each galaxy is controlled by its own black holes which will not be a standard size. The recent discovery of a "sun" 2,500 times the size of our own sun is testimony to this statement.

    The other explanation needed is for the reference to The Standard Model referred to in the theory of how mass forms from the freezing of gravity with energy entrapped inside it. The standard model is a table of the elementary particles which includes quarks, leptons, fermions and bosons. The author does not wish to go into this but is happy to supply the following link to a Wikipedia page with The Standard Model table and all relevant details on it. You may go to:   The Standard Model  and then by clicking on your return arrow come back to The Universe Explained. It should be noted for any who wish to go with this link that it is, like The Clements Theory (2009), still a theory AND, it does say that the provisions given in the document do NOT take into consideration of the action of gravity in its thinking. Well, The Clements Theory does take gravity into consideration, after all, it is what everything comes from and what everything is all about! The Clements Theory (2009) also suggests the answer to The Standard Model, just read and think!


QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS

    The first question is, given the Universe is a natural cycle, is this the first Universe or the 31st? Let us consider the nature of the big bang. There is no control in place so the whole thing is total chaos. No rules exist over how many pieces are the result of the bang or what size they would be! What if the bang was a smallish one and very central? We might get 2 massive black holes, one north oriented and one south oriented, with just a few thousand other pieces. Under these conditions that type of Universe would not last too long as the 2 black holes would be attracted to one another very quickly. They would both still be mega hot and therefore very strong and quite dominant. We might be looking at just 1000 years until the next big bang. Thus, each Universe is totally unique! Have any that have gone before or will any that come in the future ever have the conditions for supporting life as in this Universe? What might that life be like?

    Consideration must be given here to laws and rules. As previously stated, the laws of Physics and Chemistry are all related to mass but BEFORE any mass was formed these rules may not apply We may use them for guidance in trying to visualise how gravity and energy interact. For instance, before the Singularity is ready to BANG, something happens which does not appear to add up. With magnetism we know that 2 like poles repel one another. Gravity is NOT magnetism but it does appear to be similar. As already stated the author believes gravity to be either north or south oriented dependent upon the amount of swirling going on.  The birds of a feather principle is that all the north polarised gravity will gather together and all the south polarised will gather together, like 2 armies marshalling the troops before they face each other. When north and south are opposed, with all the energy in the middle, that is when the strength of both sides is roughly equal and they will be attracted together, compressing the energy in the middle, thus causing the BANG!

    The Clements Theory (2009) has proposed how mass forms by the freezing of gravity with energy trapped within it. The proposal puts forward that it is the percentage mix of energy and gravity that controls the difference in the particles formed. That is the simplest format BUT we know that energy manifests itself in many different forms. The author does believe that this also has quite a bearing on particle definition. Energy manifesting itself as radiation would probably have quite a different bearing on the property of the particle than energy manifesting itself as electricity. We also do not know if gravity can manifest itself in multiple forms. The author believes that it has only 2 which are north or south oriented under a swirling soup kind of situation. Are the lighter elements, the gasses, composed of, say, 20% gravity and 80% energy with the heaviest elements, say 20% energy and 80% gravity? The lightest elements, the gasses, are held in the atmosphere around the Earth by the gravitational pull from the Earth's centre, thus they are furthest away from “mother” gravity. Does this suggest that, as we get nearer to the Earth's core, we would find a greater concentration of the heavier elements? In the cooling process, we must remember that we are talking of temperatures of immense proportions. In the earliest stages of cooling everything, even earthly metals, will be in their gas form, and this is where the "like finding like" will happen.

    The Clements Theory (2009) did explain that we mine metals according to how cost effective it is to recover them from the Earth. Does that mean that, as we run out of elements, we might find the cost effectiveness of digging deeper becomes more attractive, even given the obvious safety risks? The author thinks not. The author believes that, should future research into the real nature of mass take the right direction as suggested in The Clements Theory (2009), then we may just achieve something along the lines of what the alchemists were trying for! They wanted to turn base metals into gold. WE, however, might think along the lines of developing a “Super CERN” to manufacture whatever we are in need of! By the time oil runs out we should have found a better, cleaner way of doing things BUT we would still need some oil. It would be nice if we could just set the dial and make a couple of million barrels. Science fiction? NOT if we fully understand the origin of mass from gravity!!!! Think of our current “Carbon Capture and Store” policies to cut pollution. WHY STORE? If we capture carbon dioxide we can crack it. The oxygen is free for release into the atmosphere (under strict quantity control) to help combat pollution. We could hopefully use it to replenish the ozone layer but this would be much more difficult due to the nature of ozone. The mountains of carbon would not be a problem. If we made all items like the panels on our fridges, freezers, TV's etc. from carbon fibre we do not need sheet steel any more and it should be cheaper. This would need a shift in political will but the author believes it could be achieved. All very nice but, getting back to basics, as stated at the very beginning, The Clements Theory (2009) is an attempt to describe the Universe in its simplest form. The author readily accepts that the area of gravity freezing to form mass in the way that he describes requires much more detailed consideration and hopes to receive feedback on this subject.

    

    Another very important question might be “What is beyond the boundary of the Universe”? What is the resistance we are expanding against? Isn't this where Newton went astray, needing to bring God into his deliberations? The author does not want to go there at all. The business at hand is to try to comprehend the Universe and that is a big enough task on its own. There is room for a God for anyone who wishes to believe in that but, in every case, it is purely a personal thing, whereas the understanding of the Universe is common to all of mankind and, therefore, the 2 must not be linked!

    The last question is also the most important and that question is WHY IS THIS THEORY SO IMPORTANT? It is because, if the basis of the formation of mass is correct, we now know how to save this planet from the destruction being wreaked on it by ourselves! If we can use surplus mass to create all that we need, we can overcome our problems. If we change sand into oxygen, we can fix the atmosphere problems. If we stop raping the earth for metals because we can make what we need from surplus material we stop polluting the earth. We also stop killing off life forms that are threatened by mining. Need I go further?


Einstein

    Einstein's statement E = MC² was intended to demonstrate a relationship between mass and energy. It was extremely clever in that it gave us, for the first time a relationship between Energy and Mass, but it was unlikely to be provable at that time. How could Constant be achieved with the technology of the day? Even though, at that time, the statement was revolutionary, it is now accepted to be too simple a statement to explain it all. Why is it too simple? We know that Einstein worked in his own personal notation that was NOT the accepted convention of the day. We can possibly conclude that Einstein KNEW that mass and energy had a special relationship and his intention with the statement was to stimulate those that came after him to investigate down those lines. It did, and the first collider was constructed in Cambridge in 1932 and now we have CERN. The business of particle collision has given us many of the advances we have made. The Clements Theory (2009), however, now shows the true origin of mass. To put it into notation is NOT a mathematical proposition (at this time) but the undernoted "equation" could be representative of the true nature of mass:


                                                     P

------------------------               =   M

                                                (E + G) - T


    The above merely says that Energy plus Gravity and then, minus temperature and (probably or possibly) under pressure will create mass. Should we ever prove that mass is purely energy and gravity mixed and frozen, then the value attributed to E and G and, also considering the qualification (energy type) of E may allow M to be replaced with the Chemical Symbol of the ELEMENT to which it relates! This is (VERY SIMPLY PUT) how it may look for gold (achieving the alchemists dream) which has an atomic weight of 79:

                                                                                   P

-----------------------------------            =    Au

                                                                          (21E  + 79G) - T

   
    

BLACK HOLES and  DARK MATTER

    Given the Bang, the subsequent formation of gravity centres (the remnants of the Singularity) and the size of these gravity centres determining whether they are self sufficient and can stand alone as black holes or are small enough to lose heat by radiation to eventually form mass and become planets, we come to a point which needs clarification. Black holes are at the centre of every galaxy and control the size and shape of that galaxy. There may be smaller black holes within the galaxies that influence a part of that galaxy but come under the influence of the master black hole at the centre of that galaxy. Given the nature of the BANG, there must be billions of incidences of what we may call "unallocated gravity" all over the universe. This will be gravity with very little or no energy associated with it. As has been stated, gravity needs heat for it's strength but, over billions of years, this unallocated gravity has lost it's heat and is just "floating" somewhere. This will be the dark matter that science is searching for but it still has a big part to play. It was thought that a black hole was so strong that NOTHING could escape it's hold BUT, we now believe that a black hole will emit bursts of high density radiation. Surely, we may think, that this will eventually lead to a cooling of even the black hole it'self? It would unless the strength of that black hole were constantly not only being re-inforced but even being strengthened but how could this happen. We are at a point where science thinks the black hole at the centre of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, is about to absorb a large cloud of gas. When this occurs, the gas will be converted into gravity and energy and will "feed" our black hole. As we know, a door opens to either let something in or out but, whilst that door is open, either or BOTH can happen. If a black hole is emitting radiation, it must or, probably, is taking in something unseen. Might this be unallocated gravity? If so, we get the radiation emission at the point of more gravity entering the black hole, thus it's power is either maintained or added to by the unallocated gravity compensating for the loss of the heat with the radiation emission. This may appear to be a kind of control or stabilisation of the status quo but, eventually, the black hole is likely to be stronger and, when the black holes of the universe have absorbed all unallocated gravity, we may be at the point of the cessation of expansion and the turn of gravity to be the dominant force and the contraction of the universe towards the next big bang will have started. Ever since Einstein's Theory of General Relativity science has talked of "space bending" and "space flowing", often in the BBC2 Horizon programmes. Let us put this straight right now. Space is a vacuum, that is, NOTHING! We cannot bend nothing and nothing does not have the ability to flow. Where we see a radio signal changing course in space or where we see light appearing to change course in space, as in around a black hole, we are merely observing the strength of gravity having it's effect on the radio signal or the beam of light. Within this theory, we have seen that gravity and energy are two opposing forces. It is reasonable, therefore, to believe that a beam of light is highly likely to be affected should it pass near a major gravity field and the same can be said of a radio signal. Modern physics needs to remove the Einstein blinkers, usually acquired with a degree in physics, and move forward. It is hoped that this theory may help in that long needed advance.

"WHO's AFRAID OF A BIG BLACK HOLE"

(BBC2, Tuesday 3rd November 2009)

    A television programme with the above title was aired on UK terrestrial TV on the above date at 21.00 hours and was a part of the ongoing HORIZON series of scientific programmes. The author watched with interest as all the contributors were asked in turn "what is a black hole" and none could or would answer. The major contributors were Michio Kaku, (City University, New York), Max Tegmark, (MIT), Lawrence Krauss, (Arizona State University), Reinhardt Genzel, (Max Planck Institute), Ramesh Narayan and Andrew Strominger, (both from Harvard). At the heart of the programme was a discussion on where we are with the understanding of the universe to date. This was a fascinating programme but it was only at the end that 3 things came home to the author. Firstly. one of the contributors posed the question "which scientist would want to be the one to prove Einstein wrong"? The author has already suggested that this is the case. Einstein explained how gravity is caused whilst the author says gravity is 1 of the 2 forces at the centre of everything and is therefore not "caused" by anything but was present from the start. Secondly, the author proposes exactly what a black hole is and explains its workings. Within the programme more than 1 contributor said "we are at a standstill, we need a whole new approach, a whole new idea, another point of view. The author published The Clements Theory (2009) 8 months before this show was aired with the subtitle "Another Point of View"! Lastly, Michio Kaku showed us how Einsteins calculations from his Theory of General Relativity which "explain the Universe" fall down right at the very end where the result is infinity, which the mathematicians find an unacceptable result. Quantum Mechanics also finishes the calculation with an infinity, and finally, Quantum Gravity theory ends with multiple infinities which, again, academia cannot accept. If 1 + 1 ALWAYS equals 2 there is only a problem on the day it doesn't. Maths is the purest science we have. On that day where 1 + 1 does not equal 2, we do not throw out the maths, we look to see which of the 1's is not a whole 1. So, If 3 different disciplines ALL end with infinity, are the maths of all 3 wrong OR does the maths of all 3 confirm the result of infinity to be correct? The Clements Theory (2009) describes a Universe which is a cycle and therefore re-creates itself with every big bang. Is that not infinity? As every new Universe is unique does that not describe a chain of infinities? Could the maths of all 3, applied to The Clements Theory (2009) be used to prove the principle of the theory?  The author knew nothing of the mathematics described above at the time of first publishing this theory!  Is it not significant that 8 months  prior to the airing of such a TV programme, a theory that answers what the physicists in that programme say they are looking for AND that theory ALSO supports the mathematics is published with the subtitle that has the very wording of what is asked for in that programme? 


Modern Example of Altering Time in a Natural Cycle


    Let us consider another natural cycle. These are ice ages. Full ice ages are separated by glacials, where the amount of ice covering parts of the Earth increases and interglacials where it decreases. The average time between glacial peak coverage is about 150,000 years. The Earth is currently in an interglacial period and has been for about 10,000 years. This suggests that we have another 140,000 years to go before the next peak and, short term, we will see the ice caps diminishing. We do believe that, because of pollution, this is happening at an accelerated rate. If so, then this is an example of the alteration of the time scale of a natural cycle! How and why would this alteration happen? It would come from a change in the temperature of the oceans. 

    The Southern Pacific ocean has a natural cycle called El Nino which is an abnormal warming of the surface water. This alternates with La Nina, an abnormal cooling of the surface water. True to a natural cycle they are equal and opposite, each one taking a turn of dominance and it seems to be a 4 year cycle. This cycle is very important to the NORTHERN HEMISPHERE and it's weather AND also the temperature of the Atlantic ocean. It also has a profound effect on the southern hemisphere. How? 

    When we have El Nino, there are often serious rainstorms and floods in South America and this causes serious droughts in Australia (because all their rain has already fallen in South America). OK, how does that affect the northern hemisphere? The warmer the water, the more easily it evaporates and is taken into the lower atmosphere. Water in the lower atmosphere forms clouds and they give us rain. Water taken up in the Pacific finds it's way into the jet stream. The jet stream is a stream of air at around 30,000 feet up which blows at anything from 100 to 400 miles per hour. It's path is from just north of the Gulf of Mexico to Northern Scandinavia. All the time it is moving it is usually depositing its rain into the Atlantic. It's normal path can be deflected which is why the United Kingdom had the devastating floods in 2007. 

    Now we know that if the temperature in the Atlantic Ocean were to fall by some 15 degrees C, then that would probably trigger the onset of the next ice age. That would be a massive alteration in the time scale of the ice age natural cycle! Could it happen? YES, HOW? The north Atlantic is very cold The equatorial Atlantic region is not, BUT, what about all that ice that is breaking off of the Arctic because of global warming? It floats south and wouldn't that cool down the Atlantic? NO, because the Atlantic has 2 safety mechanisms. First there is the gulf stream which is a stream of hot water flowing from the Gulf of Mexico, north of Ireland and finishing at Scotland. This is the “stage 2” barrier. The “stage 1” barrier is all the rain fall from the jet stream. This is water that is quite a few degrees warmer than the ocean into which it is falling. In this way the temperature of the Atlantic is more or less controlled, thanks to the Pacific waters in the southern hemisphere! Icebergs do not get to flow too far south. 

    Now, when all the jet stream rain falls too far south as it did in the 2007 floods, firstly it is falling on land and NOT in the ocean and, secondly, it is falling SOUTH of the gulf stream!!!! Under these conditions and with larger than normal icebergs, the temperature of the Atlantic can fall and the extent of that fall will reach much further south than normal. These are conditions which, over say a 30 year period, could take the Atlantic Ocean's temperature very close to that critical reduction mentioned earlier. This would be the ultimate variation in the time scale of a natural cycle. The author does know that some of the World's experts have said it will not happen but he also knows that the Russian Government has allocated millions of dollars into preparing for an ice age. There is a lot of digging and construction going on there which is linked to the ice age scenario and the Russians might well be thought of as the experts at living in a cold environment. 



The Prediction


“There will be one

who sees it all,

he shall be buried

beneath a wall”


Michele De Nostredame (Nostradamus) ©1560(ish)


    The above is one of the many quatrains of prediction written by Nostradamus in the middle 1500's. Inclusion of this paragraph does NOT imply any belief by the author in the predictions of Nostradamus. In this quatrain “he” is emboldened because the quatrain specifically refers to a male. “Buried beneath a wall” is always translated by the Nostradamus scholars as insane or not in control of ones thought processes. This reference to the Nostradamus prediction is included because the author readily accepts that there may be some who, after reading The Clements Theory (2009), believe the author to be nuts but be careful before you point your finger, if the prediction is right, then that nut was correct (according to Nostradamus).

    If you enjoyed this site or found it thought provoking you might also enjoy a look at a site that I host for a friend called  Caustic Bytes. Be careful, there are no punches pulled and those who earn a place on this site should look in the mirror and see FOR REAL what they are looking at!


        

Home        Feedback        Intro


© Joe Clements, March 2009