All

Hi Tsurugi,

I hope the new posting on the other thread has clarified what the statistics suggest. When considering the coral ring research, one option is to consider that the Earth is slowing down in it's rotation.

If you analise the coral data assuming Earth is at the same distance from the sun, then a year would be the same revolution but at 420 days, each day would be 20 hours and 51 minutes.

This is a difference of 3 hours and 9 minutes. Now digital time suggests the Earth's rotation is slowing at a rate of 2 milliseconds per hundred years. This equates to one second for 500,000 years. If this rate is constant then for 3 hrs and 9 minutes or 11,340 seconds it would take the Earth 56.7 billion years to change this period of time. As these figures don't work alternative factors must be involved.

The other thread details that the statistics above are for how many days per year if you are living on each planet. Another way of considering why Earth had 420 days is by increasing it's distance from the sun and therefore increasing the time for a year or revolution. This scenario has logical evolutionary variations with regards to the size of fosilised species from the past. At a distance further from the sun although a year would have more days it could have a longer day as with the longer revolution and so this time consideration would sustain the larger species. It would also suggest that global warming is a natural process. Species become smaller as time speeds up and adaptive changes are made due to warmer circumstances.

Assuming the Earth does not change it's position or distance from the sun and is slowing is a possibility but other logical options are perhaps more likely considering larger time scales and the evolutionary history presented to us.

Ok, I'm not sure I can make sense of all of that(time speeds up? what??), are you answering my question in there somewhere? If so, I can't find it. I went to your website to try and find an answer and I succeeded (I think). You say planets have a lifecycle that corresponds with their position in a star system, starting way out in the outer reaches, moving inward and becoming gas giants, then disgorging their core to become an inner system solid planet, becoming hotter all the while as they move closer to the sun. So you mean all of the planets, not just earth.

There are fossil corals that appear to indicate a 420-day year, and some that indicate a 410 day year, etc, implying that earth is slowing its rotation speed over time. Classical Newtonian physics attributes this slowdown to friction, basically a transfer of kinetic energy from Earth to the moon by way of oceans and tides. So the earth slows its rotating while the moon increases its orbital velocity, resulting in longer days and an increasing distance to the moon, all of which generally check out and make sense to me.

But classical physics has its problems and I have a hard time trusting academics these days, so I don't mind other theories being proposed. The question then becomes "Is there anything your new idea explains that conventional theories do not?" Also, what are some conditions which, if observed to be true, falsify your theory?

Hi Tsurugi,

We have a most valuable position in comprehending life as we have traditional, perhaps more spiritual theories about life and we have available contemporary science and theories but also global information available at our fingertips. We therefore are in the position of evaluating all such information and filtering the relevant and important aspect for our individual analysis.

As you have read the website you will notice some rather interesting global trends. Sorry for the downloads, these complete the articles, all are only a couple of pages. You may have picked up from the foundation article that a very enlightening pattern to nature is evident, relative to the formation of the Earth itself. As I have been introduced to the planetary motion concept, as a more natural organic process, I consider the notion the planets move on a natural formation cycle towards the sun.

The statistics I provided clearly show the number of days each planet has in a year. This offers an alternative or more logical and mathematically correct hypothesis. The theory does not alter the standard contemporary idea, of the rotation period slowing down it concludes that combined with an inward movement towards the sun, the statistics become realistic and correct. To grasp the time speeding up idea, imagine sitting on the Earth if the Earth was further from the Sun. Longer days and longer years would exist and as you move closer the days get shorter and the years shorter, this would be like time is speeding up. When considering this theory of planetary movement it offers a logical evolutionary process that explains why or how sizes of animals have become smaller and have adapted to warmer environmental conditions.

The Website as you may have grasped by the first part of the articles, as you didn't download the articles, has identified the pattern in nature with the traditional anatomical beliefs and these correlate to the same pattern recorded as ancient monuments, each parts of the one design, representing the same concept. For about 25 years I have been viewing variation in animal dynamics and features and discovering why animal features are connected to each region of the World, correlated to the physical recognition of the World structure. This is the emphasis of the New Perspective website but the philosophy gives in-site into many subjects, including planetary evolution and motion.

Hi Tsurugi,
Sorry I haven't addressed this, I had been busy on some philosophical sites and must have missed this.
What the statistics below indicate is that a very obvious relationship is apparent. These are the days you would have if you sat on each of the planets. The relationship between distance from the sun, rotation and revolution rates, produces these statistics.
Mercury 1,   Venus 1,    Earth  365,    Mars 670,    Jupiter 10504,   Saturn 25292

Many theories exist on planetary motion and evolution, I understand that the planets evolve organically and move towards the sun as the website article defines. If a planet moves away from the sun, when considering vast periods of time, lets jump to the Jurassic period, it would be hotter, days and seasons shorter (time would appear faster), but dinosaur physiology suggests the opposite environmental conditions. Planets can't be forged or come from the direction of the sun, they become cremated by the sun in an organic logical process.

Place the Earth a third of the distance closer to Mars and lets say it now has 420 days and has a longer year, it would be cooler and have longer seasons, all conditions that would suit larger species.

## Pages

 Register to become part of our active community, get updates, receive a monthly newsletter, and enjoy the benefits and rewards of our member point system OR just post your comment below as a Guest.