Carter Brown

Hi Martin,

We find some of the Creation history of the Earth recorded in scripture but no significant detail concerning the history of other Celestial objects except for some mention of the Moon. The Sun’s light is also discussed, but we don’t have any clear evidence of its age. Various star’s are mentioned but it is their light that we find discussed in general in ancient history, not the details of creation nor the time involved in creating other stars or galaxies.

As far as the speed of light goes, the UM has made some significant discoveries on this topic that will be explained in Volume III. These new observations will open our understanding to former measurements of the Universe, which have errors just like we find in all other areas of science where old theories have been held onto for decades without any physical evidence demonstrating their validity.

I hope this helps and encourages you to continue your reading of Volume I so you will be ready for when Volume II comes out!

This is a quick response, let me know if you would like to discuss anything in more detail 🙂 ( I will do my best to answer as long as it doesn’t pertain to Volume II or III specifics)

Carter

In academia today, the general consensus being taught in public school(s) is that quartz based fossils (the most common fossils) take millions of years to form. Geologists do admit and have found that the fossilization process may not take millions of years. However, even the geologists have failed to recognize the complete process of how it happens.

Volume II of the Universal Model (specifically chapter 10 The Age Model and chapter 11 The Fossil Model) will answer this and several other questions regarding fossils.

Wow Barry!

You are here to keep me in line aren’t you! haha

I think you make great points. I need to take the blame on this one again, I really shouldn’t have said so much at the beginning of this thread because there is still more experimentation to be done on our end. In a sense you could say I was talking about a UM Theory. Which means we have more to do before being justified in calling it a Natural Law. I am learning now to be extra careful and double check all the things that I say while writing on the UM website.

It is theoretical at this point, we are still in discussion phase and we do have satellite engineers and physicists helping us along in that discussion with what they can. The whole purpose of the UM is to find truth so that I say ‘come what may’!

Can I just say, we appreciate your questions Barry. It is helping us find our weak points, giving us (well at least me) ideas for future research, and also, this is just fun! It is a great day when you get to spend your time discussing and learning more truth about nature.

Anyway, consider this my formal apology to Barry and the UM team for overstepping my bounds on this thread.
Carter

Hi Barry!

I apologize for the confusion, allow me to clarify what it was I meant. Yes these carbonates rocks are growing today. If fact all over the world they are growing, and I am aware of that. In my first post on this thread I was answering specifically in response to Floyd’s question, “Are there also these large sediment layers of calcium carbonate, Dolomite and Loess scattered around the ocean floors?”

The UM’s stance is that Carbonates are growing as you say in “conditions are usually right in warm, shallow seas, e.g., in the Bahamas.” But Floyd’s question wasn’t about any carbonate growth. He was asking about “large sediment layers” which if you think about the word ‘large’ I guess it is a bit subjective. I should have been more clear on what I was inferring.

I took it to mean he was asking about the massive pure deposits of carbonate deep within the rock layers, which purity and size are not in any formation process today because of mixtures of other sediments. The UM’s stance is that these hundreds of feet thick deposits were laid out very quickly which prevented different layers of sediment from forming. Also, Dolomite that in general is not forming on the Earth today, came from the hypretherm microbial conditions of the flood.

It has been brought to my attention that I specifically don’t know of any 100’s of feet thick calcite deposits in the oceans, only on the land. I figured since there was dolomite there would also be calcite. Maybe that was a presumptive thing for me to say in my original answer on this thread.

Please forgive my sloppiness, and thank you because I appreciate correction 🙂
Carter

Great question Stuart!

Just a reminder of something you probably understand, but the UM is a massive undertaking. We are questioning very fundamental theories of the scientific establishment and that means we have to cover every field of science: geology, astronomy, physics, biology, etc. We have to do this because every field of science connects to almost every other field. What I’m saying is, thank you for your question, and we regret that we could not fit the answer in Volume I. So instead we actually cover this subject in Volume III of the UM: The Universe System as it relates more to physics and the universe.

But since you asked, I would be happy to give you a general answer! The Gravitational Constant, G, is a proportion that shows up in Newton’s equation of gravity. Henry Cavendish devised an experiment to find G back in the year 1798 using a device that used pendulums and big metal spheres to measure the gravitational attraction between the spheres. From his experiment, he calculated a density of the Earth to about 5.5 grams per cubic centimeter. Other scientists noticed this number was close to the density of iron, hence the iron core theory. From there, G was derived to be about 6.6 x 10^-11 with the subsequent units. UM researchers have replicated this experiment and have found that air resistance actually has an appreciable effect on the pendulum, something that Cavendish did not account for. His experiment needs to be redone in a vacuum so that the air doesn’t slow down the movement of the pendulum.

Even though this number has been ‘established’, there is another number that is usable and even preferred in space technology. That is called the Gaussian Gravitational Constant, k. It was derived by Carl Fredrich Gauss based on the average orbital period of the Earth. This number does not require a specific mass of a celestial body, and is in fact the number that satellite scientists will use in their formulations and space missions.

So, in essence, space missions successfully work because scientists use the right proportions for the mass of planets and asteroids, even though the specific mass isn’t accurately known.

I hope that answers your questions. Let me knew if there was something you want me to further expound.
Have a great day!
Carter

Wow, what a great question!

To start, I want to clarify two things. First, the fossils we made were quartz-based petrified wood, the most common type of non-microbial fossil that exists in the U.S. and the world. However it is only one type of many different varieties of fossils, so there is a lot of exciting research to be done by millennial science. I bring this point up so you know which type of fossils we are talking about.

Second, fossils are not able to be carbon-dated. This isn’t new information, all paleontologists and geologists are aware that fossils ages cannot be directly measured, so they measure them indirectly by comparing them to nearby rocks. I was quite shocked when I found how scientists derive their dates for prehistoric events. I’m sure you do not want to read me ramble on about scientific-dating procedure. In short, scientists cannot directly date fossils. You will be able to read in detail about this subject in Chapter 10 Volume II, of the Universal Model.

Ok, now to specifically answer your question, do “your fossils have the exact same properties as the ones found in nature?” The answer to that is yes. Our researchers (who have many decades of experience in petrology) have not seen any difference in our man-made fossils and natural ones. We are excited for other laboratories to replicate our work and expand the field in making different varieties of fossils.

Now, for your other question, “does carbon dating return results claiming your 2-day, garage fossils are thousands or millions of years old?” As I explained earlier, fossils cannot be directly dated. A lot of fossil dating deals with the theory of when different species lived on the Earth. The significance of our experiments show a tremendous fault in the theories of Evolution and Deep time. The idea that fossils take millions of years to form is just not substantiated and, therefore, not scientific.

Personally, I think the implications of this experiment on Science are even more interesting than on the study of fossils itself. It shows that modern science has moved away from an experimental, natural law based mindset. Into one of unproven theory and speculation. Essentially is unveils a dark age of modern science.

Let me know if you have more questions or want me to explain things further.
Thank you for posting!
Carter

That is a great question, Wes!

Yes, the Mid-Atlantic Ridge is moving at a common rate for continental movement. But remember this movement has been measured at about 2 cm per year. There are no long-term measurements that have been made based on crustal movement. So yes, at the moment the ridge is growing. But will it still be growing 10 years from now? No scientist has any data on any long-term movement, subduction, or uplift. It would be unscientific for us to state that there will be long-term movement. Science must be based on observation and experimentation.

As for your question on what is happening to the other side of the crust. Crustal plates are wet and fairly compressible and have the ability to bend and fit spaces to a certain degree. Remember 2 cm per year is very slow. If this movement continued for even a hundred years that would make for only 6.5 ft of total movement. So really subduction is not necessary for this slow of a movement.

Based on my experience and research in the UM, I have noticed a pattern that cycles are a principle of nature. So I would personally predict that there may be a time in the near future where the Mid-Atlantic ridge will begin to close back together. Then it will reopen and close and repeat. But of course, that’s just my personal prediction. We will have to wait for more long-term data to know for sure!

Let me know if that answered your question!
Thank you