web metrics

Life Forms In Meteorites?1

Few could have escaped the recent gushy press coverage of NASA's announcement that an Antarctic meteorite, possibly of Martian origin, seems to have carried vestiges of life forms from that planet to ours. No need to recapitulate all that hype.

What we do add is the observation that this same sort of excitement has swept through the scientific community at least twice before. Back in 1961, B. Nagy et al discovered tiny particles resembling fossil algae in carbonaceous chondrites. They called these particles “organized elements.” Ultimately, these curious particles were explained as natural crystals and terrestrial contaminants.2

Figure 1: Some of the “organized elements” found In carbonaceous chondrites in the early 1960s. They turned out be terrestrial contaminants.1

Much earlier, in 1881, Hahn, an eminent German geologist, asserted that he had examined thin sections cut from chondrites and found fossils of sponges, corals, and crinoids. In fact, the extraterrestrial coral that Hahn found even received the scientific name Hahnia meteoritica! In the end, though, Hahn's meteoric life forms met the same fate as the ”organized elements” of Nagy et al.

Marinov Motor

The late Stephan Marinov worked for years on electromagnetic phenomena which apparently violated the second law of thermodynamics. In particular, he developed a design and constructed a motor which almost violated the second law, that is, which acted like a perpetual motion machine. A perpetual motion machine is one which runs forever without any source of energy.

Since Marinov's death last year, several have been working on his engine. This from Jeffrey D. Kooistra via email:

Marinov originally thought his motor was a kind of perpetual motion machine, but obviously could never get it to work that way. [Nevertheless,] it is a genuine phenomenon.

It has likely practical applications, particularly when the ring is fixed and the magnets rotated, especially in cases where simplicity of design is important (i.e. nanoscale motors and the like, provided one can fashion high strength magnets at that scale.) The biggest impediment is that conventional motors have been around a long time, and work pretty well in there own right.

It is probably a challenge to Relativity. Last week it up and defied Newton's 3rd law on me, and I still can't get it to obey Lorentz either. I made a video of this — I'm still not sure how I'll distribute it to interested parties.

I would not be surprised at all to find out that the Marinov motor (I've been calling it the “Warlock's Wheel” since last week, actually, Marinov didn't understand this thing at all in my opinion) demands an ether theory to explain how it works, which is what I take it to mean when one says “indicates the existence of the Firmament.” But we have plenty of evidence for a physical ether anyway — the Sagnac effect being just one [example].

The significance of the late Stefan Marinov's research is that he was trying to draw energy from the firmament. The firmament has an inexhaustible amount of energy, enough in one cubic centimeter to power the universe for trillions of trillions of years.

More Hubble Trouble

No, I'm not talking about the Hubble space telescope, this Hubble trouble relates to the expansion rate of the universe “near” the earth. When astronomers look at distant galaxies, their light waves appear longer and longer the further away they are from earth. This phenomenon is called the redshift. Using special kinds of objects which are very bright yet very much alike (supernovae, Cepheid variable stars, brightest galaxy in a cluster, elliptical galaxies, globular clusters, etc.), astronomers have developed a distance scale. It is this scale which determines the redshift.

Back in the thirties, when the first measurements of the redshift were made, the brightness of the galaxies was used and the expansion rate was measured at 620 km/sec/Mpc. That is, the expansion rate of the universe increases by 620 km/sec about every 4 million light years. The ”problem” with that value was that the universe appeared much too young not only for evolution to take place, but for the stars to “age” to their evolutionary “ages.” Since then the values have settled in a range between 30 and 100 km/sec/Mpc. Indeed, the value observed depends on the object being used to measure the distance. Using the surface brightness changes among the brightest galaxies, for example, has recently been found to be quite consistent, but the value it gives for the Hubble constant, as the expansion rate is called, is 89 km/sec/Mpc. Supernovae have recently been touted as giving an expansion rate allowing for the oldest stars to be younger than the universe, but apparently the Hubble constant (H0) is really high.

If the universe were not as dense as observed, then for a given value of the Hubble constant it could be billions of years older. For the time being, however, the expansion rate of the universe must remain too fast for the stars to have evolved in the big bang model for the origin of the universe, so the push has been on to explore and promote models of the universe which are more rarefied. These models are called “open” universes because the expansion will continue for ever instead of slowing down to eventually collapse in upon itself.

Regardless of the fate of the evolutionary time scale of the universe, the Hubble constant remains geocentric. The expansion rate is centered on the earth's neighborhood and is measured as the distance away from earth. It is inherently geocentric. No matter how hard astronomers try, they cannot avoid geocentric evidences.


1 Reprinted from Corliss, William; “Astronomy,” Science Frontiers, No. 108, Nov-Dec 1996. (Sourcebook Project, Box 107, Glen Arm, MD 21057.)

2 Urey, Harold C.; “Biological Materials in Meteorites: A Review,” Science, 151:157, 1966.

3 Bingham, Francis; “The Discovery of Organic Remains in Meteoritic Stones,” Popular Science Monthly, 20:83, 1881.

Created on 11 February 2005 by ws2html