UM Team

Barry,

The more we read your “competent critiques” the more we are convinced that you are not interested in finding the scientific truth to any topic discussed here in the UM Forum. One reason may arise from your personal definition of what science is. On our May 10th post in your original thread Quartz CAN Form in a Melt, we stated the UM definition of Science found on page 40 of the UM:

“A study of demonstrated truths and natural laws that describe and explain Nature.”

However, you said you did not agree with this definition as you stated in your May 10th post:

“Also, I do not agree with your definition of science, but it’s not that I don’t think there’s such a thing as truth. Rather, I think it’s harder to prove you have the Absolute Truth than you seem to want to believe.”

Perhaps you have a better, more succinct definition of science? Certainly, a professor of science must know what science is in order that he or she might teach it, so please share Barry’s short definition of science. Because we found remarkably divergent views on what science is in the scientific world, we resolved that we must be clear about the UM definition of science. Apparently we were not clear enough because you draw an incorrect conclusion that the UM claims to have Absolute Truth.

So that we can clearly state to any who read these forums, the UM has never claimed to have the Absolute Truth. We clarify this on page 19 of the UM where it reads:

“Absolute Truth is knowledge of what is, was and what always will be.”

Regarding science, how can human beings know “what always will be?” The future has not happened yet, so this is why we define Scientific Truth as:

“Scientific Truth is knowledge of what is, was and, so far as is known, what will be.”

The UM clearly defines the difference between these two types of truth; one is scientific, and the other is not. Assertions that the UM tries to “prove [we] have the Absolute Truth” are baseless. The hundreds of new scientific truths found in the UM are scientific in nature, and you would do well in your “competent” critiquing to not make false claims you cannot back up as the readers of these posts are continually seeing. Moreover, you did not comment on finding new natural law that is used in the UM definition of science. Is this because you do not believe science should be looking for new natural laws? Are you aware of the fact that no new significant natural law has been discovered in the last century like that of what Newton or Kepler found hundreds of years ago. So please provide us with your definition of science and why you choose to leave the search for natural law out of your definition as almost every modern day scientific textbook has also done. And if you do decide to include the search for new natural law into your definition of truth, please explain what new geological laws you have been looking to confirm. This will give you a better perspective to see what the UM has been trying to do for several decades, and what you have been trying to condemn without reading all of the evidence.

Referring to your May 6th post on Heat Flow, you stated that our overall conclusions may be correct, but we may have some of our claims mistaken, which we acknowledge that possibility. However, while we expect to correct our mistakes, we know that some things pointed out to us as mistakes by those outside of the UM research influence are actually not properly understood by the person reporting the mistake. Correcting mistakes is a fundamental step in the UM’s goal towards making science easier to understand and more correct and we’ve been correcting and improving the research for several decades. And we don’t take this task lightly.

You then quote a long paragraph from our previous post which stated that science is for everyone, and meant to be understood by everyone, not just the professors. You did not answer the questions posted to you why hundreds of people could see the simple truths of the UM, but you have not acknowledged even one! We asked, “On one hand, we have conventional science, which has not discovered one new significant natural law in over one hundred years, and it tells us everything came from nothing; on the other hand this new Millennial Science sets forth dozens of new natural laws that everyone can easily understand and test for themselves.”  

You posed a question in your last post: “If none of said people understand the standard scientific theories, and you describe those theories incorrectly, how can they possibly make any informed decision about such a thing?” This shows that you seem to have missed an important point. We believe people are less interested in “understanding scientific theories” and would rather  know the truth.They want to be shown the facts, and they want to learn about natural laws that do not change because those laws are simply statements of truth. The UM sets out to introduce dozens of new natural laws that truthseekers can confirm for themselves; They no longer need to “just trust” the ‘smart’ theorists to explain unproven magmaplanet, geological time, evolution, or Big Bang theories that can never be proven. Instead, they can discover the truth using new natural law constructs outlined in the UM.

To continue with meaningful dialog in this subject, it is important to understand  the four Introduction chapters in Volume 1. For instance, on page 31 we point out the establishments’ claim that the “endpoints of science are theory” (According to the National Science Foundation (NSF)). By accepting this proclamation, the scientific establishment to which you belong effectively concedes that they cannot, and are not trying to discover natural law.

As to the level of detail touched on in the UM, you asked:

“Can you at least accept that someone like me might have significant insights about whether you are fairly describing MY paradigm?”

We certainly can accept that premise; you no doubt have “significant insights” about your field of inquiry, but all of it still falls within the modern scientific paradigm, which is the very reason we are having this discussion right now. So while we acknowledge your insights into your own theories, the UM challenges the modern geology paradigm in a legitimate attempt to restore modern science to its purpose of discovering new natural law. Which means  the UM covers a broader scope but not as much depth on some subjects. Many forum readers feel that you have unfairly cherry picked a few points from individual chapters, but you take them out of context. Simply put, you cannot fairly describe the new UM paradigm without reading it.

Your challenge is to break from consensus if you truly want to be a great scientist as Michael Crichton aptly stated:

Previously, we posed a question to you; “What if this subterranean water (which scientists themselves now acknowledge exists in quantities far beyond what is found in our oceans above the crust), was the same water which covered the Earth during a Universal Flood 4,362 years ago? What if this event actually happened? What would it mean to all of modern science and to every human being that, not one or two, but hundreds of empirical evidences of the Flood actually demonstrates its reality. You admitted to thinking about this but went on to say:

“For instance, when you talk about scientists acknowledging that vast quantities of water exist in, for example, the mantle, do you realize that they are not talking about liquid water, or even ice?”

You infer that the scientists are ONLY talking about “small amounts of the elements H and O in their crystal structures” – but this is NOT correct. Again, it is clear you have not read the Hydroplanet Model, especially subchapter 7.6 (p279 of UM) where you will find no less than 27 separate quotes from geologists from around the world, each taken from “peer reviewed” articles that state exactly the opposite of your claim that, “they are not talking about liquid water.” We are fully aware of yours and other geologist’s ‘theory’ that H and O elements exist in large quantity instead of water in the mantle and core of the Earth, but your adherence to this theory shows you must have missed what other researchers actually found, which is WHY we have repeatedly asked you to read the entire Volume I before you critique the new science, in part because you seem to be unaware of what other geologists have found! We will list just a few of these and ask the readers to read for themselves the Hydroplanet Model to discover how the Earth was formed from water:

“What’s the last thing you would expect to find in this hellish environment? Water. Vast amounts of the stuff. In fact, more than 400 kilometers inside the Earth there may be enough water to replace the surface oceans more than ten times.. These inner ‘oceans’ could help explain long-standing puzzles about Earth’s  formation.” (p281 UM)

Another researcher states after calculating for the “water content” (not H and O as you stated) in mid-ocean ridges:

“Frost calculates that would be the equivalent of 30 oceans of water.” (p281 UM)

Another researcher states:

“The total water content of the inner Earth could be less than 10% or as high as 100 times the water contained in the hydrosphere… “ (p281 UM)

Another researcher states:

“The presence of a significant amount of water at the core-mantle boundary could explain some seismic characteristics of the D layer.” (p281 UM)

None of these researchers and many others not listed mention the theoretical H and O elements you refer to, but, they ALL claim that a significant amount of WATER is present. It seems you are “misinterpreting scientific sources” in your commentary, and because you have  yet to read the rest of Volume I – you are only pretending to claim expertise about it.

Based on your own admission–“I [Barry] actually haven’t done a ‘review of Chapter 5.’”–you cannot offer what you refer to as  a “competent critique” on it or any further chapter. You must READ the chapter and the evidence we offer before making comments. We show repeatedly that many modern science claims are not supported by observable science, which is supported by quotes from many scientists in the UM chapter you supposedly read. This is the epitome of bias; Drawing a preconceived conclusion without even reading the material. You also conceded:

“I have absolutely no problem with the idea that magma (at least the stuff that is too deep in the Earth to drill into and observe directly) is “theoretical,” and that we have to “infer” the existence of things we can’t directly observe, and that “inference” always involves some degree of speculation.  The real question, for me, is why you think this is so significant.” (emphasis added)

One reason this is SO IMPORTANT is that academia routinely does NOT mention that magma is a speculation in their curriculum or textbooks. Furthermore, academia does not teach students that magma is only theoretical and a speculative construct, and THIS is the problem. Every geology professor we encountered teaches the Earth as a magmaplanet as a hard FACT – this is not only highly misleading – it is intellectually dishonest.

How does one such as yourself defend this glaring omission? By deflecting and accusing the author of claiming something he never said or did:

“Alternatively, please show me how Dean Sessions observed the Earth’s deep interior directly.”

Nowhere in the UM will you find the claim that “Dean Sessions observed the Earth’s deep interior directly.” The UM challenges the inferred notion of magma, which you admit is only “speculation” despite its being taught as fact in all mainstream geology departments. Because we do, the messenger who tells the true message is now the problem.

To your next point, you acknowledge that geologists can not use radioactivity as an excuse for the heat of magma as you state:

“… geologists do not, in fact, think that there are local concentrations of radioactivity in the Earth’s interior concentrated enough to melt the rock around it.”

But you completely ignore how you or any geologist ‘thinks’ magma is heated? This is a real example of what you continue to refer to as a “straw man”. So please answer the question:

How is magma heated?

You don’t disagree with the new UM frictional melting laws but you diminish it with the comment that if it “is a good argument” our ‘other’ “bad arguments” somehow take away from this new truth outlined in the Magma Pseudotheory chapter. However, you have not presented real scientific evidence for the so-called bad UM ‘arguments’, although you continue to restate the modern science inferences.

We addressed the Fig 5.4.5 issue in detail in a previous post, but you simply ignored it. We will let the readers determine if the difference between “heat flow” and “thermal gradients” significant to the discussion about the Earth’s inner magma or absence thereof. What we think the public wants to know is why are the vast majority of caves cooler as one descends into the crust? Why does the ocean get colder at depth when it is closer to the center of the Earth? Why do the deepest boreholes not show an increasing thermal gradient as we reach toward the so-called magma core? How could a melted core create the Earth’s energy field when a heated object destroys its magnetism? How does one justify an iron core’s existence if there are no observable large accumulations of any natural mineral with  a density even close to 5.5 g/cm3 inferred by geologists? Why are modern scientists unable to find simple, clear answers to these questions within the ‘established science’ paradigm? There are many other questions we might ask, which demonstrates major problems with the inferred, “speculation” of the magmaplanet Earth. This is further supported by discoveries related to all the other planets and moons, which astrogeology and NASA now confirm have more water in their interiors than the UM’s estimates about the Earth’s interior water.

We also agree on another area of geological import! We “get extra heat flow around mid-ocean ridges.” While there should be no point of disagreement when we look at the “Actual Heat Flow Map” Fig 5.4.5, you raise the question, “why you don’t get a bunch of volcanoes and extra heat flow around, for instance, the Himalayas or the San Andreas fault.” The simple answer is that the constant movement (where most of the heat is generated) is present  generally along the the mid-oceanic ridges and in areas like the Big Island of Hawaii where many small but constant earthquakes create heat that drives the lava flows observed there. This is why we can actually measure the horizontal movement of the continental plates’, but not their vertical movement (p117-122 in UM). This explains why uplift over geological time is only a theory without merit. Slow, constant, horizontal movement keeps the mid-oceanic ridges hot and the small “silent earthquakes” discussed on page 81 in the UM, wherein Hawaiian geologists recently found previously unmeasured small earthquakes occurring in great numbers such that within 36 hours the ground moved the equivalent of a 10 cm movement! This has  caused scientists to revisit long-held doctrines about all earthquakes” (p81 of UM).

Sadly you ignore the fact that the UM clearly states from many researchers’ quotes, that the Earth’s plates are “floating” but you do not tell us what the continents are floating on? Your description of the asthenosphere from Wikipedia is typical of modern geology, stating some parts “could be melted,” and that “The lower boundary of the asthenosphere is not well defined.” However, if we look at the physical evidence from the lower crust seen in Fig 7.7.5, and if one reads subchapters 7.6 and 7.7 to gain an up-to-date picture of what geologists know (but do not all realize) about the upper and lower crust. On page 293 of the UM we find:

“It is thus reasonable to suppose that much of the lower continental crust may be a saturated environment, with excess water in equilibrium with a hydrated mineralogy unfamiliar at the surface. This suggestion that wet granitic rocks in the lower crust could account for high electrical conductivity there is not new.”

Note that no one in these articles refers to hydrogen and/or oxygen elements within the rocks. For the UM, it is all about water. Notice the words the authors used, “excess water,” “saturated,” “hydrated mineralogy unfamiliar at the surface,” and “wet granitic rocks.” Furthermore, there are dozens and dozens of pages and diagrams from the “peer reviewed” journal articles on this one topic!

In your responses, you copy large paragraphs for the readers but you often throw out one-sentence non-answers that are both repetitive and tiring. You also  completely ignored the discussion on impact cratering, which returns to the unanswered question of why there is no glass in the so-called Arizona Meteor Crater, or the 165 pages of the most in depth analysis of impact and steam explosion craters. Your response: “Yawn.”

You also state, “Yep, we have a whole cabinet full of uranium ore downstairs at work” but you ignore the fact that none of your samples are hot! They are not even warm! So how do they melt rock? They don’t. Then you ask:  

“Are you suggesting that radioactive decay doesn’t release heat?  Because that’s how nuclear reactors work, you know.  And that’s all standard geological theory requires.”

This may be what “standard geology theory requires” but it is not the whole story, and the people want the whole story. The chemical process used to enrich radioactive fuel used in nuclear reactors does not happen naturally anywhere in or on the Earth. All nuclear reactors require man-made, highly processed, enriched radioactive fuel cells, which do not come from any naturally occurring process anywhere on this planet. Perhaps this is why modern science has made the big mistake in thinking that magmatic heat comes from radioactivity..But wait, you said two pages earlier:

“… geologists do not, in fact, think that there are local concentrations of radioactivity in the Earth’s interior concentrated enough to melt the rock around it.”

You can’t have it both ways.

We have taken the time to explain in extensive detail the answers to your questions regarding this topic. Of course, Volume I has many more details than we could include in any single forum thread. You will need to more fully read and evaluate the specific portions of the UM that have been referenced in our replies and all the additional scientific evidences provided which you have chosen to avoid. Please briefly answer the questions we address in this reply before we close this topic/thread. Thank you.

Barry,

With all due respect, your reply in this post shows a chronic unfamiliarity with the UM material which is not surprising given its very recent public debut. To correctly understand the UM and, as you say, “competently” comprehend subchapter 5.12, Earth’s Magnetic Pseudotheory, you must first read all the previous subchapters and chapters of the book. In addition, it would be helpful for you to realize that the Pseudotheory chapters generally only demonstrate what is wrong with the theories of modern geology. Answers to questions raised in subchapter 5.12 are found in the Model chapters and in the Weather Model (Chapter 9), we find subchapters 9.5-9.7 explaining the origin of the Earth’s energy field – called the Geofield in the UM. We hope you will look at these new discoveries and see for yourself a much clearer description of the Earth’s energy field and how and why it is generated, which differs significantly from that proposed by modern science.

The purpose of this forum is for students, readers and critics alike to articulate concerns and/or questions regarding the UM, we feel the forum is serving that purpose. Addressing your concerns has been a productive exchange, however,other than asserting that UM is inconsistent with modern scientific theory, you have yet to present any real evidence that the UM’s discoveries are demonstrably false. From our perspective, you continue to raise the same issues, that we have already addressed in the book and on this forum. All we ask is that you take the time to finish reading Volume I so that you can, “competently” frame your questions and/or find the answers which are in the Model chapters.

Your original post “The Earth’s Magnetic Field”, illustrates a lack of understanding both of what modern science proclaims in its collective textbooks and what the UM has discovered and demonstrated in the Model chapters about the Earth’s energy field. You probably didn’t have time to fully read these topics and this is understandable. The UM explains (subchapters 9.5-9.7) that the energy field around the Earth is not generated from a magma core and is not a ‘magnetic field’ per se but is associated with a piezoelectric field generated by the constant daily Earthtide and cyclical movement of the crust; it is a quartz-generated electric field. You seem to have chosen to ignore(?) this evidence, or you simply have not taken the time to read all of the content that you are criticizing.

In this example, you state that the UM has “two main arguments” against the standard theory of modern science about how the Earth’s magnetic field is generated, but this is incorrect. Each subchapter in the UM is divided into sub-subchapters, and the bolded header of each of ‘sub-sub’ is easily discernible. Subchapter 5.12, Earth’s Magnetic Field Pseudotheory has 6 such sub-subs, each with its own evidences refuting the idea that the Earth’s energy field comes from a molten iron core. Moreover, subchapters 9.5-9.7 contain 32 sub-subs providing specific answers and evidence about where the Earth’s energy field originates. If you aim to complete a “competent” evaluation of the UM versus modern science theory of the energy field, you cannot ignore any of these 38 sections with their new discoveries and associated evidence and simply cherry pick two areas that do not agree with conventional modern science.

Moreover, you apparently dismissed or disregarded science’s most famous icon, Einstein, when he expressed concern about the “problem” surrounding the origin of the Earth’s energy field found on p115 of the UM and cited here:

“In more modern times Einstein, shortly after writing his special relativity paper in 1905, described the problem of the origin of the Earth’s magnetic field as being one of the most important unsolved problems in physics.”

Did you know, for example, that the “standard theory” as you state it, has “important unsolved problems?” Most scientists we talked to have either ignored these problems or did not know they existed because there is NO answer or experiment in today’s modern science that demonstrates how the Earth’s energy field could come from a molten core. It comes as no surprise, therefore, that you hold the origin of the Earth’s energy field to be a “standard theory,” because most of modern science accepts this theory as fact even though there is no science to back it up. There are dozens of theories in geology today that come from this same philosophical origin, that being the false theory of a magmaplanet Earth.

The UM states, “Any theory or model proposed to explain the geology of inner Earth must include an explanation of Earth’s energy field. Incorrect theories are difficult and ultimately impossible to combine with each other because of the disconnect that exists between the ideas. However, truth is easily connected. This is the beauty and universality of truth.” (p115 of UM)

Looking at the first of two challenges you posted towards all the evidence mounted against magma causing an energy field around the Earth. You quote the UM on p115:

“The existence of the Earth’s magnetic field provides us simple, yet powerful evidence that the magma model is incorrect. Why? Heat destroys magnetism.”

You then say that:

“The problem is that both of these arguments only apply to permanent ferromagnetism, which scientists do NOT believe is the cause of the Earth’s magnetic field. They do not apply to the standard “dynamo theory”, which involves electromagnetism.”

So what do scientists believe causes the Earth’s energy field? You left out of your critique, the UM quote on p115 from the article, Probing the Geodynamo in Scientific American which states:

“But how well do the geodynamo models capture the dynamo as it actually exists in the earth? The truth is that no one knows for certain.”

So neither you nor anyone else know for certain the cause of the Earth’s energy field. Furthermore, you have left out a simple fact that every electrical engineer knows; heating a magnetic-field-creating object (such as the Earth) destroys its magnetism! So you are right Barry, “magnetism is destroyed by heat” in the hot core pseudotheory of the magmaplanet Earth. Dozens of engineers who have read this chapter, who work with energy fields and heat every day completely understand this principle. Although you allege that the UM says the Earth has a permanent ferromagnetic magma core, in fact it does not. We quote on p114 exactly what the typical modern geology textbook says about the creation of the so-called magnetic field:

“The magnetic field is created by the flow of molten iron inside the Earth’s core.” (Note 5.12a p114 of UM)

It appears you were apparently confused about Fig 5.12.3 (p116 of UM) where we show the typical “representation” of the “magnetic field” shown in many science textbooks that are being taught to our children where the so-called dipole energy field of the Earth is drawn with a magnet at the center of the Earth so that students could see what the field around the Earth looks like.

Your second challenge states that “scientists do NOT believe… the cause of the Earth’s magnetic field” is permanent ferromagnetism (a permanent iron type magnet) and you therefore imply that the UM’s following statement is incorrect:

“a ‘permanent’ magnet’s energy field does not change or oscillate” (p. 117).

However, the UM never says that there is a magnet or any energy producing object in the core. But this is what modern science has portrayed with the following example quoted from the popular Understanding Earth college geology textbook on p116 in the UM stating:

“Earth’s magnetic field behaves as if a small but powerful permanent bar magnet were located near the center of the Earth…”

Barry, given these misses in your analysis it becomes easy to see why at the end of your post, you asked:

“So why does Dean Sessions argue against positions that no scientists actually hold?”

It is less than professional to ignore the thousands of direct quotes cited in the UM from modern science itself that we have so meticulously reiterated over and over throughout the entire three Volumes and 2,000+ pages? You have a choice; you must either denounce Frank Press and Raymond Siever and their popular college geology textbook Understanding Earth and write your own, or you come to recognize that whether you agree with their assertions or not – modern geology believes and teaches students in public schools.

Once again, if you read subchapters 9.5-9.7 you will see exactly how the Earth’s energy field is created in the crust from the piezoelectric properties of quartz and the constantly moving crust, not from the core, and especially not from a heated core which would destroy magnetism coming from within. Is this not what is important? The first time a publication has declared to have physical evidence for the origin of the Earth’s energy field? Remember it was Einstein who said that this was “one of the most important unsolved problems in physics.” And can you ignore this?

Will you deny that your own peers said that no one (including you) really “knows for certain” how the Earth’s energy field could exist with the dynamo theory? The theory and every experiment that has been conducted to try to reproduce the field from a melted substance has failed. Period. Go watch the videos and read the published experiments on this subject and see your tax dollars at work with failing magma dynamo experiments. You should know this is a fact, or if you would like to prove it otherwise, please show us the experiment that verifies the modern science claim that, “The magnetic field is created by the flow of molten iron inside the Earth’s core.”

The UM lists 38 specific topics outlining why there cannot be a magma core magnetic field and why the energy field of the Earth is actually a surface-generated Geofield (the piezoelectric field created by quartz rocks in the crust moved by the constant gravitational action of the Moon and Sun). Included are two new Piezoelectric Natural Laws (p743 of UM). It is apparent that you have chosen not to discuss (or probably read about) more than 99% of the material included in the UM concerning the Earth’s energy field when making your dubious claims. We hope your “competent” critques would rise above this.

The UM Team

Barry,

Once again, we thank you for your “competent critiques” on the UM and as with any other human endeavor, we acknowledge that the UM is not perfect and we wish to correct any errors that may be found in it. The problem you are faced with, as we noted at the end of our previous reply on May 4th, is that you are decidedly in the scientific establishment black box, your arguments in its favor clearly demonstrate that fact. As such, you may have the majority of “consensus” on your side, but by no means can you claim exclusivity when it comes to a corner on logic, reason and truth. The public will ultimately decide the fate of the UM. Just as the public decided the fate of the Copernican, Newtonian and Chemical revolutions. Truth, once it is exposed  becomes self-evident in time and the old ways simply die-out. The scientific establishment of which you are a part is not used to dealing with revolutionary ideas in science because few have dared to question the “settled science” with an entirely new basis or foundation. It has not happened in any of our life times, and it is remarkable to see how many, when presented with the “Big Picture” of Modern Science (i.e. everything comes from nothing) for the first time, immediately see it as illogical and ill conceived.

This Forum thread has been titled by you as “Quartz CAN Form in a Melt,” which on its face is a false statement. Let’s see if we can clarify the falsity of this statement right up front. The UM has made quartz as seen in Fig 7.4.13 on page 266 of the UM. Have you done this or do you know anyone personally who has? If not, why not? With quartz being the most abundant mineral on the continental crust (p101 of UM), shouldn’t modern geology be interested in exactly how, and in what environment quartz formes? Most scientists including geologists we have spoken to have never even seen water inside a rock – they were never shown how common rocks that are quartz-based grow (precipitate) from water. The UM shows how most rocks originally came from water and demonstrates it by observing the weight of the rock with the water in the rock before and after heating above 100 C.

Have you made quartz crystal comparable to natural quartz from a melted solution of silica? We can answer this question for you – you have not. Why? Because no one has and this is because quartz cannot form from only melted silica. The Hyprethermal environment from which natural quartz crystals grow can only be duplicated in a water environment. So you should have no problem with the fact that the UM has produced not only synthetic quartz, (see p266 of UM), on the next page under the title, “Indistinguishable” From Natural Quartz, we find the quartz that we have made indistinguishable from the real thing. The following quote from Gems Made by Man, by Kurt Nassau, which is the most authoritative book on this matter we were able to find, states:

“No consistent identifying features are known a present for the reliable differentiation of synthetic from natural quartz and the two types are so far indistinguishable.” (p267 UM)

This important statement supports the UM Identity Principle which states: Identical results come from duplicating processes found in Nature. This imperative statement of course relates to the HYPRETHERMAL environment in which quartz was made, which means being encompassed or grown from water under high pressure and relatively low temperature (350 C). It is similar to how we can literally watch salt grow out of water when a supersaturated solution is cooled. We will be explaining more about this in Volume III of the UM where we find water being the organizing crystalline factor of all natural minerals formed. Nevertheless, the mineral quartz is only formed under specific pressures, temperatures, in water and with some other factors, none of which involve a “melt”.

See Fig 5.7.6 p103 and Fig 7.4.17 p268 (above diagram) that are found in the UM for details of the Silica Phase Diagram, which has been around for a long time and has been verified by many physicists and is empirical evidence, not theory. In this Diagram the pressures and temperatures wherein 99.999% of the natural silica or Quartz is grown or melted into a glass, are clearly delineated and show that if the pressure or temperature are too high, Coesite, Stishovite, Beta Quartz, Tridymite or glass are formed. We must keep in mind that these other types of silica, which are still SiO2 are NOT the same as natural (Alpha) quartz that make up almost all of the natural minerals found on the Earth. Natural quartz is only made under very specific low temperatures (typically about 325-400 degrees celsius), high pressures and in water, not from melted rock requiring at least 1,700 degrees celsius. Although the word melt is used loosely here and in most geology textbooks, to clarify, let’s define it as above 1700 C at atmospheric pressure, which many references can be found to show that this is the quartz melting point. Although pressures can change this melting point, in the Silica Phase Diagram we can see Natural quartz is formed nowhere near the liquid silica temperatures which turns into glass when it is cooled. Anyone can understand this by watching YouTube videos where natural quartz sand turns into glass when it is melted in a factory to make are panes of windows. What the geologists say happens deep inside the Earth, on the other hand, remains speculative, as we see in the following quote from the Understanding Earth geology textbook p83 (Bib 59 in UM):

“How do Rocks Melt? Although we do not yet understand the exact mechanisms of melting and solidification…”

Modern geology has had to admit they do not understand because the magmaplanet theory is false and doesn’t hold up. If the Earth were a sphere because it was a ball of melted rock in space, why wouldn’t all rocks we find on the surface today be glass from a melt? Although the geologists go on in their quote above, “How do Rocks Melt” by saying they have performed laboratory experiments which tell them how rocks melt, all we have to do is look at their best theory (from Bowen’s Theory of Magmatic Differentiation see page 122-123 in UM) and we find no answers. It is only a theory that has never worked and has produced no natural law from which the public can understand the simple formation of rocks and minerals. On the other hand, the Hydroplanet model clearly explains and demonstrates the Earth’s formative environment with water as all natural rocks and living things first formed from water.

In fact, the Understanding Earth geology textbook states Bowen’s experiments and theory done in the early 1900s are “accepted today as the idealized progression of minerals produced by cooling magma” found on page 123 of UM, also states:

“The biggest problem, however, was the source of granite. The first sticking point is that the great volume of granite found on Earth could not have been formed as Bowen’s reaction series suggests.

“Bowen’s original theory of magmatic differentiation has been supplanted since he proposed it many decades ago.”

What does “supplanted” mean? Well, from the same page in the textbook we find:

“Nevertheless, as we noted earlier, most later work on the differentiation of igneous rocks was built upon the foundation of Bowen’s ideas.”

What happens when we build new theories on false theories? This is exactly what has happened, not only in geology, but in every major field of science today where pseudotheories are present.

Specifically addressing your statement from page 161 of the UM where you quote the UM:

“In the Magma Pseudotheory chapter, we presented evidence showing why magma is a myth and why natural quartz did not come from a melt. It is important to realize that the science of geology has been unsuccessful, from the magma perspective, in producing most of Nature’s minerals. Granite is considered a plutonic rock (cooled magma-sourced rock made deep in the crust). It often exhibits large crystals of quartz and feldspar. For over a century, geologists have tried unsuccessfully to make granite from a melt.”

You then commented on this quote found on the same page of the UM, made by by Paul Hess (1989) Origins of Igneous Rocks, p70:

“Plutonic textures have not been duplicated in the laboratory, however. The complete crystallization of the interstitial liquid as large crystals has not been achieved in granitic melts.”

This statement confirms what the authors of Understanding Earth geology textbook stated above concerning the failure of Bowman’s theory and his experiments with granitic melts. However, the other passages from the same Hess paragraph you claim that we overlooked are noted here:

“Coarse-grained plutonic rocks are produced over several millions of years of slow cooling and crystallization. Nevertheless, experiments show that feldspars of the size and shape typical of plutonic rocks can be grown in a matter of days or weeks in the laboratory…. Peak growth rates of feldspar and quartz in hydrous granitic melts are in the range of 10^-6 to 10^-8 cm/sec, and growth rates of plagioclase, pyroxene, and olivine are even greater in more depolymerized melts. Even the slowest growth rates are capable of producing crystals several centimeters in diameter in a few years. The very slow cooling rates of deep-seated rocks are not necessary for the formation of large crystals.”

Once again you have shown that as long as “peer reviewed” quotes cite actual observations, they have supported the UM position. In this case, every time we see “million of years” needed for anything we can ignore it is only theory because it is not demonstrable and thus not observable and therefore NOT science as noted in this first sentence. The next sentence, mentioned that the experiment was in water (hydrous) and only needed days to produce very small crystals, but no details on temperature, pressure, or the nature of the mineral is stated and Hess is simply talking about what he thinks other researchers have done. It is the last sentence that includes what is important; on p161 of the UM, where the “very slow cooling rates of deep-seated rocks are not necessary.” The millions of years that Hess mentioned in the first sentence appears to let other geologists know he still follows the geological time mantra and won’t get in trouble for saying that rocks can be made in days. How many people know of a rock they can hold in their hand after observing its formation in one day? How many? No one among thousands we talk to, until they hear about it in the UM. Thus, teachers are not teaching the simple fact that natural rocks can grow out of water just as synthetic, or man-made rocks do; and they can be made in days.

Perhaps you could give the four pages that describe how Glass is NOT Quartz (p101-105 of the UM) to several people that have not had your geological training and see if they can’t see how simple it is to grasp. Then have them read pages 257-273, beginning with the Enhydro Evidence, and see if real water in rock examples do not make complete sense for the first time when we realize that ALL natural minerals were first formed from water. This is why the Earth is a sphere – it had to be a liquid in space when it formed, and the ONLY large amount of liquid in space is water! In fact, who has ever observed magma or a melt to take place in space? Answer: no one. But as subchapter 7.2 (p234) demonstrates, water is found all over our solar system and on every planet and even the Sun and in the Orion Nebula, “The birthplace of the Stars” (NASA) wherever we have taken the time to look. And this is just for starters. Wait until you read about all the water in the Universe in Volume III.

Over the decades that the UM has been in development, it helps to understand that critical responses not unlike yours have already been taken into account many times. Experts in their fields of study have a very difficult time jettisoning their favorite pseudotheories they have been teaching for so many years. It has ever been thus, change is difficult even when the truth is so plain as to be obvious. Indeed a wise teacher once quipped after quoting a well-known adage: “Yes, the Truth will make you free, but it will make you really uncomfortable first!” The science language you use every day has been confounded by the UM and we understand this.

With the UM now released to the public, you have a chance to be one of the first geologists to read Volume I and actually contemplate that what you are reading just might be real. No, it is not perfect, we certainly have never made any claim that it was and we expect that corrections will need to be made from time to time, but the overwhelming evidence must be considered by every truth-loving individual. We are assuming you believe that there is truth, right? Many scientists do not and we quote them throughout the UM stating as much. The UM is the first revolution in science in any of our lifetimes and has brought overwhelming excitement to literally thousands who have begun the UM journey and begun to see for the first time, the stunning body of empirical evidence that they can both observe and evaluate for themselves. This is causing many to completely change their previously held worldview. It is scientifically illogical to conclude that we originate from nothing – even though modern science says we did. And yes, the quotes of the modern scientists are there to read for yourself stating that each step of the Big Picture of Modern Science (that we come from nothing) is actually taught throughout the world.

We find a good example of how modern geology is coming closer everyday to the new discoveries found in the UM as relating to glass melt as we look at an article at phys.org that came out recently on May 5, 2017 and titled, New theory on how Earth’s crust was created. Note that the article points out a fact in the opening sentence which helps explain why the UM makes such a big deal about quartz, because, “More than 90% of the Earth’s continental crust is made up of silica-rich minerals, such as feldspar and quartz.” Thus, the first step we must take as investigators of Nature is to find out what kind of environment quartz can grow in – and it is not from a melt as the UM has shown, supported by  all the research we have examined. It clearly is NOT demonstrated in the geology textbooks or classrooms. The UM demonstrates it further by taking the “most abundant volcanic rock basalt” (as stated in most geology textbooks and on Google), which is, in fact, a quartz based rock – and simply melts it. See Fig 8.7.4 p567 in UM for an image of basalt that has been melted by a torch. The smooth black glass area not only looks totally different from the quartz-based basalt sample that supposedly came from a melted lava flow. Glass is 1000 times less heat conductive than quartz and breaks when dropped on the ground, whereas quartz and basalt are very durable. How do you explain this, Barry? Also can you explain why no-one that we could find (after an exhaustive research) has ever observed basalt coming from a volcanic lava ‘melt’, even though basalt covers vast areas of continents? Afterall, lava (not basalt) is seen cooling all around the world. Neither the public nor the geologist has been aware of this simple observational fact that the UM has exposed.

From what we have found, geologists must first acknowledge that in a laboratory, the only reproducible quartz ever grown of which you can hold in your hand, (several cm for instance), grew out of water in a hypretherm, indistinguishable from natural quartz. This process is actually observable in nature, growing right now in natural settings on the bottom of the ocean as seen at TAG Mound (see p608 and 651 in UM.) Please do your own research on this topic, but realize that if the science you talk about growing quartz from a melt is real (even if you use just 1% water), it has to be duplicatable and the quartz grown has to be shown to be “indistinguishable” from natural quartz.

The phys.org article goes on to state geology’s standard theory of the formation of the Earth from an “ocean of magma” or magmaplanet as the UM calls it. This entire melted rock “theory” is the first problem; professors (maybe not yourself) and their textbooks are teaching this accretion theory as fact when they have no physical evidence to support the theory. The second problem, is that the melted rock is claimed to come from impact, which is also a pseudotheory as shown in the Hydroplanet subchapters 7.8-7.16. Much of this new information is new physics and may not be your area of expertise, but it has been presented and shown such that it is simple and clear for all to understand and comprehend why the accretion theory is a false idea. Neither you nor anyone else will grasp all this new information in a couple of days, which is why we ask you to reconsider your almost daily posting of critiques until you have taken the proper time to fully absorb and evaluate the entire content of Volume I. In addition, before passing judgement on just this Volume, please note that Volume II and III add hundreds more examples of new discovery and evidences that reinforces the information and models in Volume 1.

The New theory on how Earth’s crust was created article in phys.org then goes on to discuss the possibility of the Earth’s crust being formed from a pressurized, heated water environment in the Earth’s atmosphere. Why would they even consider such a thing if modern geology had already figured out how all the crustal quartz was made? Obviously they haven’t, but at least this theory is better than what the current textbooks say because it involves water! The description used is “high temperature steam.” However, it is flawed for several reasons, which the UM discusses in detail in the Hydroplanet subchapters 7.8-7.16, summarized in part here. The two main problems deal with pressure and time, both requirements for crystal growth, which determine the hardness (and type) of crystal and the size of the crystal. In the article, Baker and Sofonio are actually correct in thinking that some of the sediment of the crust (actually a majority of it) “settled onto” the surface of the Earth, just not billions of years ago or out of an atmosphere. The Earth’s sediments were not made primarily from erosion as taught by modern geology, but from the waters of the Universal Flood as demonstrated in subchapters 8.4-8.6. In the UM we have reproduced sandstone, showing experimentally how the planet’s sandstone formed. This same environment existed on Earth just over four millennia ago.

Baker and Sofonio’s theory does not explain how the melted silica in the upper atmosphere could be under high pressure? The pressure in the upper atmosphere naturally decreases as we rise in elevation, it does not increase. Suppose the high pressure lasted for a fraction of a second from the impact/explosion of meteoroids; this cannot work because the small amount of time is not sufficient for crystal grown sediment, even fine grain sand or silt. The researchers actually list in Table 1 that their two runs involved 48 and 168 hours of heating, which of course does not work if the pressure involved lasted only a fraction of a second. We discovered the time needed by actually growing quartz, which is why having that experience was so important, and why future geological discoveries will have to incorporate the hyprethermal grown process in their mineral making theories if they want them to match what happened in Nature.

Moreover, as the Sand Mark of the UM (subchapter 8.5) elucidates with a large amount of evidence, much (at least 50%) of the Earth’s sediment came from microorganisms! In Fig 8.5.6 and 7 (p534-536 in UM) we find silt and sand sediments made of diatoms; organisms that lived in the seas that were fossilized in the Universal Flood. While this new discovery has been generally ignored by modern geology, the fossilized sediment could not have come from an explosion in the upper atmosphere (Baker and Sofonio’s theory) or from water from some other terrestrial body because this would have created glass – not authigenic (made in place) quartz diatoms or algal cysts as we actually find in Nature.  The actual article in phys.org (A metasomatic Mechanism for the formation of Earth’s earliest evolved crust, Baker, Sofonio, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 463, 2017, p48-55) states:

“The quenched solute was dominated by glass with less than 1% anhedral quartz, iron oxide and plagioclase quench crystals.”

So not only did the experiment produce over 99% GLASS, which is not found all over the surface of the Earth, where do we find glass stones (or sand/silt) all around the globe? We don’t. Sandstones made of primarily quartz this is what we find, not glass stones/sand/silt, and modern geology has no real origin for the vast majority of sand or sandstone that covers much of the surface of the Earth, which we explain in subchapters 6.3 and 8.5 of the UM. The researchers also did not explain what kind or how they knew the type of the small (less than 1%) quartz or mineral that was made. Anhedral quartz probably means it was not Alpha quartz, which is what is found almost exclusively in Nature.

Jurgen Schieber of Indiana University who published in the journal of Nature on his discovery of the widespread existence of  authigenic (made in place) quartz sediment formed with microorganisms states (p535 in UM):

“If authigenic/intrabasinal quartz silt is widespread, a large portion of the sedimentary record may have been misinterpreted, with important implications in a variety of research areas.” His comment that a “large portion of the sedimentary record may have been misinterpreted” is exactly what the UM sets out to correct. . Schieber personally informed us that he would not be surprised if “as much as 50% of the quartz ‘grains’ in the rock record” are from an authigenic origin, and were made in place, NOT from erosion. This quartz fossilized sediment found all over the surface of the Earth today is explained in the Sand Mark, and could only form in an ocean of pressurized, heated, water; an environment called The Universal Flood Hypretherm (p528-546 of the UM).

Summarizing the Baker and Sofonio article, these researchers actually performed a hyprethermal experiment (this means in high temperature water steam) as noted in the phys.org article:

“A mixture of bulk silicate earth materials and water was melted in air at 1,550 degrees Celsius, then ground to a powder. Small amounts of the powder, along with water, were then enclosed in gold palladium capsules, placed in a pressure vessel and heated to about 727 degrees Celsius and 100 times Earth’s surface pressure to simulate conditions in the Earth’s atmosphere about 1 million years after the moon-forming impact. After each experiment, samples were rapidly quenched and the material that had been dissolved in the high temperature steam analyzed.”

Of course, the “1 million years” is not scientific because it cannot be observed or proven, and as we explain in the yet to publish Age Model chapter (first chapter of Volume II), all of the millions-of-years time frames are fabricated from false premises. Another point is that this real experiment produced over 99% glass. We note in the UM the uncontroversial fact that both the Moon and Earth are not celestial glass bodies. Thus, although the Baker and Sofonio article attempts to explain an alternate source for the continental sediment, their original premise begins from the modern science theory of accretion, and it fails to adequately explain the vast majority of the Earth’s sediments. And the UM explains in subchapter 5.13 why the so-called millions-of-years of subduction and uplift cannot explain that glass was somehow transformed into extant quartz based rocks.

By the way, we should ask if you are in accord with the UM definition of Science found on page 40:

“A study of demonstrated truths and natural laws that describe and explain Nature.”

If you agree with this definition, then we should have no trouble in being able to successfully arrive at a place of agreement since our focus is on “demonstrable truths and natural laws.” If you disagree with this definition of science, then we would be curious to know what your definition of ‘science’ is. If our readers observe that your definition is significantly different than the one above it will also serve to explain to our readers why we will likely never come to a place of unity or mutual understanding. Please also note the purpose of science as noted in the UM (p40):

“To describe and explain Nature so that we can understand and comprehend it.”

Do you agree or disagree with this definition? If you hadn’t noticed, we try to define every important or rarely-used term or new concept in the UM so that all readers know exactly what this textbook is talking about.

As you can see from this research, there are hundreds of interrelated discoveries contained in the UM that correlate with many other discoveries, creating the mosaic we display as the New Millennial Science puzzle shown in Chapter 1 as seen above. This puzzle shows pieces fitting together in an orderly fashion, forming a better picture that for many actually makes sense. This connecting of new information can be overwhelming for anyone, but we encourage you to simply read the first Volume of the UM entirely to find answers to your questions. We believe the vast majority will be found there. We cannot reproduce the entirety of the UM text in this limited forum, yet that is, in effect, what you are asking us to do with your questions which are already answered in the book. It is not the purpose of this forum to dissect and reassemble the 27 years of research, study and experimentation that went into the UM.  All of which is already amply documented in the nearly 2,000 pages of the Universal Model Volumes I, II, III. Therefore, we earnestly admonish you, that if you truly wish to objectively evaluate the claims and evidences of the UM, that you dedicate the requisite time, effort and patience to actually read the claims, the logic, the research, the experiments, the evidences and the thousands of ‘peer-reviewed’ article quotations found in the UM.

You asked at the end of your UM and Heat Flow post on May 6th if we could “actually recognize” the scientific black box? What other single authored book do you know of that has around 6,000 quotes from peer-reviewed journals, scientific textbooks and websites? We think this qualifies us for actually recognizing the scientific black box.

Hopefully, you will have an uplifting experience as you contemplate your “First Law of the Box”, open the scientifically established box and let the light in.

Barry’s First Law of the Box:

Thinking outside the box’ requires being capable of recognizing “the box.”  

We truly hope you will at some point in the future, help sharpen and perfect all of the new discoveries in this New Millennial Science as one of our esteemed peers and colleagues.

Best wishes,
The UM Team

Preston, you asked readers to contact you directly with any questions they had regarding the UM because you are a geologist. Unfortunately, you have not read the Universal Model and you haven’t been asked by our organization to offer advice on the new discoveries it contains.

The Universal Model forum doesn’t allow unsolicited promotion for either personal or business matters. This forum is meant for individuals to post their questions, comments, suggestions, etc that will help them as they work to better understand the discoveries discussed in the Universal Model book. If you do not have a forum post related to this description, please refrain from posting it here.

Thank you

Again, the UM has always expected this exact response from the scientific community. They will rigorously defend their beliefs, but belief will always fail when put to the test:

Q11: Are people going to really believe in the UM?
A: True science is not about opinion. It is about demonstrable fact that only comes from empirical observation.

Q9: Why is the Universal Model not written and published from within the scientific establishment?
A: Today, most new scientific theories and papers submitted through the scientific establishment undergo a rigorous review process where establishment-trained peers decide whether the content is worthy and within the confined views of their respective field. In the past, many large changes in science through new discovery have not come from within the scientific establishment, but from individuals that used an outside perspective. New theories and papers within the establishment are typically complicated, built on old theories and written to the well-schooled peer groups that continue to believe in the old theories. The Universal Model is not about complicated theories; it is about simple models that demonstrate new natural laws, which are observable in nature. This method of science is a return to the original way scientific inquiry and study was conducted centuries ago.

Q10: How big of an impact will the UM have on the scientific world and the public?
A: Scientific truth that does not come from a well respected source always takes time for many of those in science circles to accept. History has shown us that sometimes science cannot accept the truth for many years until the older scientists pass. Younger investigators have always been more open to new ideas and evidences. The public is an entirely different matter. Whereas, common sense has been ‘thrown out’ of many establishment scientists’ minds today, most alternative scientists and the public recognize error when they see it and do not accept theories that have not been proven with empirical fact. Keeping this in mind, the UM should eventually have an extremely large impact on society and the scientific establishment and cause a revolution in science. This is something that no one living has experienced and is hard for us to understand until it happens.