Veja o video com link abaixo:
Where Did Earth's Water Come From?
De onde veio ou como surgiu a água que cobre 70% da superfície deste planetas? Houveram muitas teorias e todas foram desbancadas. A moda agora no meio acadêmico é acreditar que esta água "veio do espaço sideral em meteoritos"...(!). Não é brincadeira minha, esta é a teoria atulamente mais aceita pela nata do pensamento cientifico! Veja o vídeo pelo link abaixo que alem de bem informativo, explica esta teoria.
Acontece que a resposta para esta pergunta - de onde surgiu esta água - foi sequestrada pelo modelo acadêmico astronômico, e ninguem mais tem o direito de responde-la. Acontece que a resposta academica é baseada num modelo teórico sobre origens e formações destes macro-sistemas, como solares e galácticos. Como acreditam piamente no modelo e uma resposta teria que se encaixar neste modelo, eles jamais pensam em uma solução que passe ao menos perto da resposta lógica, racional. E esta é tão simples, tão evidente... quando se tem outros modelos em vista, como é a resposta da Matrix/DNA Theory. Enfim veja abaixo os meus comentários postados no vídeo do Youtube:
Where Did Earth's Water Come From?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LpgBvEPozk#t=149
Please, someone answer my question:
Since that is not probable this theory of smalls bodies coming from space with the whole water, why not to think on the reverse way? Earth crossed a region full of small and frozen bodies, covered with ice, and logistically, lots of them had being captured by Earth's gravity...
That's what is suggesting the astronomical models of Matrix/DNA Theory. Which have been confirmed by hundreds of evidences in the last 30 years. But... then, the theory suggests another model for planets and solar system formations, different from the academic official theory. This model suggests that astronomical bodies are born inside a spiral vortex built by spinning clouds of stellar dusts, and when expelled out, these bodies are like energetic balls that falls into space full of frozen dust. This explains the subterraneous water in this planet also. It makes lots more sense than this absurd academic theory which can not be proved.
xxxxx
Louis Charles Morelli - July, 16, 2014
Louis Charles Morelli - July, 16, 2014
Please, someone answer my question:
Since that is not probable this theory of smalls bodies coming from space with the whole water, why not to think on the reverse way? Earth crossed a region full of small and frozen bodies, covered with ice, and logistically, lots of them had being captured by Earth's gravity...
That's what is suggesting the astronomical models of Matrix/DNA Theory. Which have been confirmed by hundreds of evidences in the last 30 years. But... then, the theory suggests another model for planets and solar system formations, different from the academic official theory. This model suggests that astronomical bodies are born inside a spiral vortex built by spinning clouds of stellar dusts, and when expelled out, these bodies are like energetic balls that falls into space full of frozen dust. This explains the subterraneous water in this planet also. It makes lots more sense than this absurd academic theory which can not be proved.
xxxxx
Louis Charles Morelli - July, 16, 2014
Com'on... the very fact that we don't know something is not excuse for suggesting stupid, absurd ideas. You are being a bad boy, because are contributing fot human kind keeping a malicious error. The error here is the theory of planets, solar systems and galactic formations. Sure, this water was part of this planet's formation, it can't have coming from outside, neither produced by rocks here. There is a new theoretical model for astronomical formations that explains very well how and why the water was here since the beginnings. Matrix/DNA Theory suggests a model where interstellar dusts spinning creates central vortexes expelling bodies, these bodies gets frozen ice dust when crossing an event horizon, and the heat of other star transform the ice into water. But...is easier keeping an old and wrong theory with absurd claims, isn't?
E a seguir um curioso comentario postado no Youtube:
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário