download the entire series of chapters in zip file
Join The energy 21 newsgroup for more information when at hand
The Aberration of Light Q: Up to now you have been dealing with matters that I can neither prove nor disprove. I would never be able to find out whether what you say is true or false. I would like you to talk about the aberration of light, by which Bradley calculated the Earth's velocity in orbit. This is something which has been fully substantiated, and your views on this would enable me to evaluate all that you have told me so far. If Bradley was right, then you must be wrong, or vice versa. A: I will try to give you an answer and analyse the problem; however, it will not be easy for me to base my arguments on the data supplied by Earth's scientists, owing to the difference between their methods and ours. You use kilometres or miles as a measure of distance, whereas we take the galactic time as our yardstick. This is hard to explain to people who are unaccustomed to seeing things from our point of view. You go into complicated mathematical calculations to determine, let us say, the diameter of the Earth's orbit, whereas we are not interested in the number of kilometres this represents, but in its equivalent in galactic time. However, let us forget galactic time for the moment, and assume that we are now using an Earth year as the basis of our measurements. Taking an Earth year as 31,558,149 1/2 seconds, we can obtain the time equivalent of the diameter of the Earth's orbit by dividing this figure by pi that is 10,045,247 seconds. Do you follow? (
A: But this might confuse you and lead you to think that time is something to do with relativity, as you already believe it to be. Time, for us, plays the part that metres do for you. We look upon it as the result of the force that impels a body through space. The greater the force the shorter the time, and the shorter also the space to be traversed-or in your terminology, the distance. Thus, if the force were infinitely great, time and space would be infinitely small; they would cease to exist.
But again the force is not everything, because in reality it does not exist; all that exists is the impulse that is applied to the' body in space and imparts momentum to it. The body's movement is then only limited by the resistance it has to overcome. What does exist then is the momentum that arises from the impulse of the force, and not the force itself. Again this impulse only exists as a function of a Will that gives rise to it. To sum up: time and space are the outcome of a powerful Will acting on the Universe, that is what we measure, taking note of its intensity in any given phenomenon. In our Universe this Will manifests itself as galactic time. But let us get back to Bradley. He maintained that the aberration of the light of stars was due to the time that light took to traverse space. On this basis he calculated that the Earth's velocity in orbit should be:
Speed of light x Tan of Aberration.
But light in space is diffuse, and wherever the Earth may happen to be in its orbit, the light of the stars will always be there ahead of it, in a sense waiting for the Earth to reach it, there can therefore be no question of any delay in the transmission of light through space. That theory is nothing more than an inept sophism, unworthy of science.
We cannot fully analyse the problem in your terms without studying the Earth's movements and correcting some of your data relating to its orbit.
You originally started by asking me scientific questions to find out where I came from. Very well then, I am going to correct your estimates of the Earth's orbit by a method which is still unknown to you on Earth. No inhabitant of Earth would be able to do this as easily as I can. Later I could how you a dozen other ways of doing it if you wished, without having recourse to any of your theories about light and without using your parallax methods. Let us first correct your figures.
A day in the Earth's tropical year is 86,400 seconds long. This the time the Sun takes to make two consecutive transits over a given point on the Earth's surface. But if two consecutive transits of the Sun and a star are taken, we then find that this sidereal day is only 86,164 seconds long, that is 236 seconds less than a tropical day. The movement of the Earth in its orbit in one day causes the light of the Sun to move forward over the Earth's surface in the direction of its rotation by just that much. When the Earth at the end of a year has made a complete revolution in orbit, this daily forward movement of the sunlight will have accounted for a whole day, or in other words one complete revolution of the Earth on its axis. This is to say that the time that should have appeared as one extra day in the year has been accounted for by a daily increment of 236 seconds in the length of each day.
The number of seconds in a sidereal year divided by the number in a sidereal day will give us the number of revolutions the Earth makes on its axis in a year. With 31,558,1491 1/2 seconds in a sidereal year and 86,164 in a sidereal day, we get 366.2567 revolutions. From. this we can calculate the daily sidereal movement of the Earth in its orbit in terms of degrees by dividing 360 degrees by the number of revolutions. Viz:
360 degrees
______________ = 0.982917 degrees or 3.538 1/2 minutes
366.2567
If an observer outside the Earth were to observe eclipses of the Moon at say twenty days' interval, he would notice that his predictions of the time of the second eclipse would be out by 19.65834 degrees (i.e. 20 X 0.982917 degree). We can convert this figure into terms of time by multiplying it by the number of seconds in a sidereal day and dividing this sum by 36O. degree Viz
86,164 X 1965834
_________________ = 4,705 seconds.
360
The eclipse will therefore appear to take place 4,705 seconds later than predicted. We can also arrive at the same result by another method:
(1) Convert the number of degrees into kilometres, taking the equatorial diameter of the Earth as 12,756 km., and using the following formula:
2*PI*radius*19.65834
_____________________
360
This gives us 27,883 km. which is the distance on the Earth's
surface represented by an arc of 19.65834 degree.
(2) Obtain the speed of the Earth's axial rotation in metres per second by multiplying the radius in kilometres by PI and dividing by the number of seconds in a sidereal day. Viz:
PI*12,756 465,102 m. per second or
________ =
86,164 1,674367 km. per hour.
(3) Divide the 21,883 km. obtained in (1) above by the 465,702 m. per second obtained in (2) above. This gives us 4,705 seconds once again as the result.
This then is the amount of the apparent retardation of the eclipse as seen by an observer in space.
These then are the first corrections, the mean sidereal movement of the Earth and is true speed of rotation. Without these data, we cannot calculate the Earth's orbit with any accuracy.
Now there is a second point to consider. Your astronomy attributes the time of the four seasons of the year to the movement of the Sun through the ecliptic. In fact, the Sun has a movement of its own which cannot be seen from the Earth.
At the vernal equinox on March 21st, the Sun rises in the East and sets in the West, between then and the summer solstice on June 2 1st, it appears to move northwards.
After the solstice it then turns southwards again. At the autumnal equinox on September 23rd, it again crosses the Equator and continues its southerly movement until the winter solstice on December 22nd.
It then turns northwards again until it reaches the Equator again at the next vernal equinox, having by then gained 1,223.898 seconds, or 20 minutes 23 seconds.
From this your astronomers concluded that the Sun has an annual movement of its own on the ecliptic, its elevation varying with the ascending and descending nodes of its movement.
Let us study the movement of the Earth with the aid of a diagram (a simplified version of this is given in Fig. '9).
FIG. 19.
T1 shows the position of the Earth on June 21st, with the light of the Sun falling directly on to the northern hemisphere at an angle of 23.444475 degree to the Equator. As the Earth continues to move round its orbit in a horizontal plane (not a vertical one as shown in the diagram for ease of illustration), the Sun will be directly over the Equator on September 23rd (position T3). At position T3 on December 22nd, the Sun will be overhead in the southern hemisphere and the northern hemisphere will be cold.
It is thus obvious that the four seasons are not caused by either the Earth or the Sun moving up or down in the plane of the ecliptic; both bodies remain in the same plane. The change is due to the fact that the tilt of the Earth's axis is constant and always points towards a hypothetical point in space. (This tilt is illustrated by the angle of the brackets that support the globe in the diagram.)
The third point we must now study is the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit. We can do this by noting the exact time of the four seasons of the year, using my method of reckoning by time, which is more convenient and not open to errors.
The times elapsed between the four seasons are not all equal, viz:
(Times given below are for 1957-58, which we have substituted for earlier figures.)
Vernal Equinox (March 21st) to Summer Solstice (June 21st):
133.611 mutes.
Summer Solstice to Autumnal Equinox (September 23rd):
134.832 minutes.
Autumnal Equinox to Winter Solstice (December 22nd):
129.331 minutes.
Winter Solstice to Vernal Equinox: 128.195 minutes.
The 1,223 seconds gained between the two successive vernal equinoxes has not been subtracted from these figures, the seasons being taken as sidereal time. We now convert these four periods into four radii of time. This works out as follows:
133611 X 4
______________ = 85.059 minutes.
2
FIG. 20.
134832 X 4
(2) _______________ = 85.836 minutes.
2
129331 X 4
<3) ____________ = 82.334 minutes.
2
(4) 128195 X 4 = 81.611 minutes.
With the aid of these four sets of figures we can work out the orbit of the Earth (see Fig. 20).
This, then, gives us the Earth's orbit. The period between March 21st and September 23rd is more or less regular, but after this latter date, the orbit looks as though it has been pressed in towards the centre by some force. During this period the Earth moves slowly in towards the Sun.
The fourth point to note is that the 1,223 seconds gained between the two vernal equinoxes must have been accruing over the whole period of this uneven movement through space, and not all at once. The reason for this precession is as follows:
The direction of the tilt of the Earth's axis, which is always in line with a hypothetical point in space, changes very slowly all the time the Earth is revolving in its orbit. The tilt of the axis remains constant at 23.444475 degrees, but the direction in which the axis points changes by 50.2619" annually.
Q: But why does the direction of the tilt change?
A: Patience! We shall get to that in a minute.
This change in the direction of the axis causes the Earth to loose one sidereal day every 70.401 years, or in other words 1,223.898 seconds every year. This figure is obtained by multiplying the number of seconds in a sidereal year (31,558,I4 1/2) by the amount of change in seconds (50.2619) and dividing this by the number of seconds of arc in 360 degree (1,296,000). Furthermore, it can be calculated from this that one sidereal year is lost every 25,784.93 years.
The change of 50.2619" in the direction of the tilt of the Earth's axis corresponds to 1,223 seconds of time, and this is precisely the difference between the sidereal and tropical years, viz:
Sidereal year = 31,558,149 seconds
Tropical year = 31,556,926 seconds
____________________
Difference 1,223 seconds.
With these data we can now ascertain the true orbit of the Earth by a different method to yours.
At the time of the summer solstice the Sun climbs at zenith to 23 degrees 26' 494" but at the time of the winter solstice it climbs to 23 degrees 26' 498" in the southern hemisphere; a difference of 0.4'. This figure then is the difference in the elevation of the Sun every time the direction of the tilt varies by 50.2619".
A difference of 04" in the Sun's position would amount to 0.8" at a point on the opposite side of the Earth's orbit, since the Sun lies at the centre of the orbit. From this we can see that the relationship between the variation in the axial rotation and the orbital revolution of the Earth is:
50.2619"
_______________ or 62.82737: I.
0.8"
Do you now see why the Earth's revolution is 62.82737 times greater than its axial rotation?
The Earth makes up for the precession that is brought about by the 50.2619" variation in the direction of axial tilt in 1,223 seconds; that is the same amount of time that its revolution in orbit takes to balance out the 0.4" variation in the Sun's elevation, which in turn amounts to 0.8" across the whole diameter of the orbit. So 50.2619 is the figure relative to axial rotation and 0.8 to orbital revolution, which means there are over sixty-two periods of rotation for every one of revolution. Do you follow?
Now we have previously obtained the true speed of the Earth's axial rotation (465.102 m. per second) by dividing 2 PI*r by the number of seconds in a sidereal day (86,164). Therefore if the Earth's velocity in orbit is 62.82737 times its axial speed of rotation, its true velocity must be 29,221'135 m. per second. With this we can now proceed to work out the exact length of the orbit, by multiplying the speed by the number of seconds in a sidereal year. This gives us a figure of 922,164,946 km. Dividing this figure by PI we get the diameter of the orbit, i.e. 293,534,466 km.; its radius is therefore 146,766,760 km.
Q: The figures arrived at by this method are not the same as those obtained by our methods.
A: That is true, but your calculations are based on a number of doubtful factors. One of the methods you use is to measure the diameter of the Sun at aphelion and again at perihelion;but at both these times the Sun is at a slight angle, so that its light has to traverse a greater amount of atmosphere. The resultant refraction introduces an element of error into the calculation, but in the method we use there is no room for error.
To go back to the diagram giving the times of the seasons (Fig. 20), we can now convert these minutes into kilometres by multiplying them with the Earth's velocity in orbit (29,221.135 m. per second). We shall then see that the Earth's closest distance to the Sun is 143,086,633 km. and its farthest 150,494,225 km.
Well, then, with the Earth's true velocity in orbit, we should be able to work out the speed of light, viz:
29,221135 km.
______________ = 294,443.229 km. per second.
O.O0O099242
Alternatively we could work it out from the length of the Earth's orbit:
The aberration of light is 2O.47" annually, which converted into distance on the Earth's orbit is:
922,164,946km. X 20.47"
____________ = 14,565.351 km.
1,296,0OO"
In relation to a point on the opposite side of the orbit, this figure would be doubled, i.e. 29,13O.7O2 km. With a velocity in orbit of 29.221135 km. per second, the Earth will cover these 2O.47 in 9969 seconds, viz:
29,130702 km.
______________ = 996.9 seconds
29.221135 km./second
Or in other words the time taken for light to traverse the diameter of the Earth's orbit is:
Diameter of orbit 294,443 .229 km./second
_________________ or
Speed of light 293,534,446 km.
All this would be very interesting if it were true. I just did it to show you that I know enough about the subject to correct your figures. The fact that we were apparently able to deduce the speed of light from the data that gave us the velocity in orbit is purely coincidental.
Q: Well, then, if Bradley's system is incorrect, why is it that one, can observe an aberration in the light of the stars?
A: That is simple my friend. Whenever one travels in a vehicle of any kind, one gets the impression that all things exterior to the vehicle are in motion, whereas the vehicle itself appears to be stationary. The apparent speed of the stars' movement depends on the distance we are from them, or the angle at which we see them. Distant objects appear to move at a slower pace, until at infinity they would appear to us to be stationary. Light does not contribute anything to this phenomenon, any aberration there may be lies, in consequence, in our senses and not in light itself: As the Earth approaches or recedes from the Sun, following a more or less elliptical course, the stars will appear to follow this movement on a smaller scale. The 20.47" of aberration corresponds to the diameter of the Earth's orbit.
It must not be forgotten that all stars show the same amount of aberration, in spite of the fact that some are more distant than others. If there were no relationship between distance and the aberration, then the light from the Sun should show the same degree of aberration, but it does not. You might contend that the Sun is very close to us, but if we accept this then light from a greater distance taking more time to reach us should show a greater aberration, but this does not happen either. But in any case, even at that short distance, there should be a time difference of
996.9
______ seconds, ie 498 seconds
2
every time the Earth moves through 180 degrees of its orbit
The Planets should also show a similar aberration, If this were the case all their movements would appear to us to be advanced or retarded, and as we drew closer to a planet there would be an apparent increase in its speed of rotation, or alternatively a decrease as we moved away; we would then get ourselves into the absurd position of seeing events happening before they actually took place.
Bradley's mistake was that he assumed light to have a speed of 300,000 km. per second in accordance with Roemer's theory. As this figure works out at about one-thousandth part of the diameter of the Earth's orbit, he jumped to the wrong conclusion, on seeing the two figures tally, and based his theory on that.
I do not wish to imply that light moves instantaneously, but only that sight is independent of light. If one sees a star rising in the sky, we perceive it before its light reaches us.
Q: At least I find your various methods of calculating the Earth's orbit convincing. I would, however, be obliged if you would explain why the Earth reaches the point of Aries 1,223 seconds before the completion of a sidereal year, and why the direction of its axial inclination changes by 50.2619" annually. There must be some reason for it.
A. There certainly is a reason. But strictly speaking there is no such thing as a precession of 1,223 seconds. It is an effect that can be explained when one knows more about it. I will explain.
The Earth, in common with the whole of the solar system, takes a spiral course through space. This is a retrograde spiral movement, with the Sun at its centre. I will illustrate this with the aid of a diagram (Fig. 21).
Note the inversion of the movements, the Earth revolving in one direction makes a spiral in the opposite direction.
Now this whole retrograde spiral itself moves in a circle through space, and at the end of every year it cuts across the circumference of this circle slightly earlier than in the preceding year, to be exact 1,223 seconds prior to the completion of the sidereal year.
As the Equator of the Earth lies at an angle of 23 degrees to the Sun, the retrograde movement of the Earth will cause the light of the Sun to reach the Equator 1,223 seconds before the Earth itself crosses this circumference. The annual rate of precession is 50.2619" on this spiral, means it takes the Earth 25,784.93 years to complete a whole cycle.
The imaginary line that the spiral movement describes in space lies at right angles to the inclination. Since it contains the greater land mass, the North
Pole is thrown slightly off balance by the resultant centrifugal force and moves to the outside of the spiral track, whereas the South Pole, with the lesser land mass, moves to the inside of the track.
So the annual precession is not strictly speaking a displacement, but rather the direction the spiral follows, or a tendency of the poles to move under the unbalanced action of the differing centrifugal force at the two poles. This tendency throws one pole to the outside of the spiral track and pulls the other to the inside of it, this in turn causes the Equator to alter its position in relation to the Sun, without any alteration in the angle of the axial inclination itself.
Q:This means that there is no actual annual variation in the axial inclination?
A: At the moment there is not, but it could happen, and that would be a catastrophe, the like of which you have never witnessed in modern times.
It has happened in the course of the Earth's history, and many lands vanished to the bottom of the oceans. I will tell you how this could happen again. The North Pole, like the South Pole, is covered with ice. All the atomic tests are carried out in the northern hemisphere, so that; all the radioactive elements, known as atomic dust, settle on the North Pole rather than the South.
It is well known that radio activity repels magnetism, so that the atomic fall-out at the North Pole will cause a rise in temperature owing to the influence of the magnetic field there, and this in turn will cause the ice-cap to melt, thus bringing about a reduction in the mass at the North Pole.
The water from the melting ice-cap will distribute itself throughout the oceans. This reduction in the mass at one pole will affect the amount of centrifugal force developed, thus altering the inclination of the Earth's axis.
When this happens land will emerge from the Pacific Ocean, and from the North and South Atlantic. The emergence of these new land masses will change the level of the oceans, causing flooding in the low-lying countries. The present course of ocean currents will also be changed, giving rise to very different conditions to those now prevailing.
Q: Why will these new lands emerge.
A:I have already told you that a planet is a delicate organism. One change brings a number of others in its wake; even the biological conditions of life can be affected. The change in the mass at the North Pole will cause a reduction in the angle of inclination of the Earth's axis. It is the Earth's rotation that creates the centrifugal force that forms the continents. The present angle of 23 degree is responsible for the existence of the land masses in the northern hemisphere; if the angle of inclination is altered, then land masses will appear in other places, until the proper balance is restored. Some continents will re-appear the north of Russia, Greenland and the north of Canada will disappear.
The mean level of the continents will be slightly lower, but there will be no general cataclysm.
Q: This would only come about very gradually, would it not?
A: The process would be slow until the North Pole reaches a high enough temperature to cause a widespread thaw, then it could happen in a night. I believe it could happen sometime between 1968 and 1972. It will be brought home to you by a tremendous earthquake that will shake the Earth to its foundations. Cities will fall in ruins and great cracks will appear in the surface of the Earth. The effects will be catastrophic. The only advice I can give you, is that you should at least try to balance off the radioactivity at the poles, so that there is an equal thaw at both the South and the North Poles; this will prevent any undue unbalance in the mass and the Earth's spiral movement will remain unaffected. If you notice that the oceans of the northern hemisphere are getting warmer than usual, or that the ocean currents are beginning to change their course, then stop letting off bombs in the northern hemisphere be reasonable at least!
But let us get back to our subject. I showed you how the Earth, rotating anticlockwise, describes a retrograde spiral movement in space.
This is another illustration of the polarity that is to be found everywhere in the Universe. A movement in one direction gives rise to another in the opposite.
A positive is cancelled out by a negative. The Earth loses a year every time it completes a cycle of this spiral, or in other words it loses one day in every seventy years. When the cycle of the spiral movement is completed every 25,784 years, a complete calendar year is lost, just as a day is lost every time the Earth completes a revolution in orbit which you reckon as 365 days long instead of 366.
This great spiral that the Earth describes is not only responsible for the 1,223 seconds difference between the tropical and sidereal years, but it also affects every other body in the system, including the Sun. Even the Sun, which is looked upon as the centre of the system, itself revolves around a magnetic centre, and this centre also has a spiral movement of its own which corresponds to the movement of the planets.
Now pay careful attention to this: The Earth moves counterclockwise, the spiral is clockwise; this latter is in turn the result of the movement of the galaxy, which moves in the same direction as the Earth. Thus we get three different movements within the galaxy, two in one direction and one in another. The movement of the galaxy in its turn affects the movement of bodies, but as the time involved is very great, it is almost imperceptible to you. We take our measurement of time from this movement of our galaxy in relation to the movement of other galaxies. However, we feel we are somewhat behind hand in this matter, and we have come to the conclusion, after some study, that it should be possible to change this system to Universal time which would be more exact.
Q: I do not quite understand, you were talking about galactic time, which implies time based on the movement of galaxies-is this not Universal time?
A: No. The galaxies are not the Universe, in the strict sense of the word. They, in common with the planets, have their own movements of rotation and revolution in space and in Universal time. Millions of galaxies put together would only make a tiny island in the Universe, for lack of a better word we could call these "island universes," and these are only part of the Universe as a whole. I would like to' define at this point the term "Flight of Nebulae." The nebulae that make up an "island universe" do not move away from one another, it is the "island universes" themselves that move away from one another. What you regard as the flight of nebulae is nothing more than an optical illusion, the real movement that takes place between the "island universes" themselves could never be measured on your instruments. Let us imagine four nebulae in the form of spheres, all moving in a common orbit, in an anti-clockwise direction. From a distance they would appear to be moving away from one another
(Fig.22).
One can see that the nebulae N1 and N3, even though they are moving in the same direction, will appear to an outside observer to be going in opposite directions. Nebula N3 will also appear to be flying away, whereas Nebula N4 will appear to be getting closer. Spectrographic observation of the nebulae would also give the same result.
As the orbits of nebulae in space are too vast and the time they take to complete a revolution in their orbit too long for measurement by ordinary optical instruments, it has not been possible to plot their actual orbits in space.
This is the explanation of the optical illusion that Earth's physicists have observed. The apparent speed of the nebulae depends on the positions they occupy in their respective orbits at the time as well as on the observer's angle of sight. Similarly, if an observer a long way outside our solar system were to observe a conjunction of the Earth and Jupiter, he would be under the impression that they were flying away from one another, and the Earth would appear to be moving the faster of the two.
However, there is an actual flight of the small island universes, due to the pressure of their radiation, and the type of electric charge they carry. They all end up in the same place in the end in the graveyard of the Infinite.
As soon as they come into being, they move away from one another, and only meet again at the end of their life cycle. They behave like a herd of elephants, making for the place where they know they have to die. They are all born in the same cradle, and then their radiation and electric charge came them to separate out and to gather momentum, each one following its own divergent path to the limits of space. After countless ages they eventually reach the end of their journey, coming together again at the opposite pole of the Universe, old, exhausted, there to meet their brothers: they still try to repel each other, and to get away from each other, but they no longer have the strength to do so. In their dying hour Nature forces them into a final embrace, and they pass away like minor gods in an ocean of blazing light.
But I cannot tell you everything about this life cycle. There are things in the Universe that I would not dare to probe. Some things are so subtle that man will only be able to understand them when a higher Power endows him with a brain that can cope with such vast concepts without blacking out. I know that the Universal Life has an enchantment beyond words; as though it were some mysterious song, sung by some immortal Being, whose voice brings worlds into being, then destroys them to re-create them. At the command "Talima Cumi" the universes stream forth again.
We know of the existence of a number of" island universes," all forming part of a common system, yet there must be countless other universes that we knew nothing of. We shall never know their full number, because life is infinite. Our Universe, which I mistakenly designated as "the Universe as a whole," due to a limitation of my mind, is itself only an island within the Infinite, perhaps little more than one of the grains of sand that desert winds carry to far off places; we do not know where the winds come from, nor whither they are going. As yet I know nothing, and many of the things that I have told you may be wrong. To an amoeba, a drop of water must appear infinite, and it could not even conceive of the Earth that sustained it. In a sense the amoeba would be right, as the drop of water marks the limit of its consciousness, but not the limit of life.
In relation to the Infinite, what more are we and our little world than the amoeba in its drop of water.
It is getting late for you, and it is time we took leave of one another.
Q: I have only one more question for today: if the axial tilt of the Earth is reduced, which places will suffer most as a result?
A: The continent in the Northern hemisphere with the greatest land mass, to be more explicit, Russia. The unbalance of the mass will cause a new continent to rise out of the Pacific Ocean, and the north of Russia will sink. Most of the steppes will vanish for ever, the northern sea will join up with the Caspian, and the remainder of her territory will be rocked by terrible earthquakes. It will not be Russia alone that suffers. Low-lying countries will be totally flooded. There will be a general fall in the level of all the land in the northern hemisphere, and a general raising in the southern hemisphere.
Q: Could the tilt of the Earth's axis disappear altogether?
A: No, if this happened life would be completely extinguished. If the centrifugal force were evenly distributed over all points of the globe, the bed of the sea would be on the same level as the continents, and all the existing land masses would vanish below the waters. In the beginning the axis of the Earth was at right angles to its plane of rotation, and then the waters covered the planet. In order that life should flourish on Earth, the Creator caused the axis to tilt, so that the ensuing centrifugal force raised the continents from out of the waters. At that time there was a high degree of radioactivity around the planet, and this radioactivity, reacting against the magnetic field of the Earth at the poles, caused them to heat up. Then, as the radioactivity decreased, the poles cooled off again, and the Earth tilted on its axis. Then later there was another sudden change in the inclination, and some of the land that had risen out of the waters disappeared once more under the waves, and other land appeared elsewhere. Many species of fauna vanished when the radioactivity ceased, and they may well reappear and populate the Earth with their kind once again. Now that you have decided to make the Earth radioactive, you will quite shortly see that the so-called antediluvian species will appear in various parts of the world, for no apparent reason.
These may be marine animals or even mammals. The reason for this is that the movement of the Earth in space determines the biological life of the planet, and this movement can be upset if man inadvertently puts his finger in the gears.
Radioactive dust has the same effect on the planet as a grain of sand that some cheeky child puts into his father's watch.