My blog post

The explanation offered by Newton was wrong.

A question arose as to why the planets orbit the Sun in an elliptical path.
As an answer to this question, Sir Isaac Newton rendered an explanation that the
circular path of the planets change to an elliptical path due to the gravitational force of
the other planets.
But, it has been proved with evidence that this explanation was wrong.
Particularly, Halleys Comet, though stated to be revolving around the Sun once in
seventy-five years, revolves around the Sun once in seventy-five to seventy-six years
only.
When Halley Comet is revolving around the Sun in this way, it is believed that a minor
change in the path of Halley Comet due to the gravitational force of Jupiter and Saturn
is the reason for this change.
But, unlike Halley Comet, all the planets of the Solar System, including the earth, orbit
the Sun in a fixed time span.
This proves with evidence that the explanation offered by Sir Isaac Newton, who stated
that the elliptical path of the planets was caused by the disruption of the gravitational
force of the other planets, was wrong.

Einstein gravity explanation disproved.

Einstein gravity explanation disproved.

Einstein has said that the elliptical paths of the planets are caused by a curve near the
sun which is caused by the mass of the sun in which the planets are moved.
But this explanation is wrong.
For example the moon also orbits the earth in an elliptical path.
But there is no curve around the earth. For example we can operate satellite around the
earth at any direction and at any height. This fact disproved Einstein explanation
regarding the elliptical path of the planets.

One more evidence against Einstein, who said that the gravity is not a force.

An object called as 3753 Cruithne also called as second moon for Earth orbiting the
earth in a horse shoe shape.

One more evidence against Einstein.

upsilon Andromeda planet system.

In this planet system,the orbit of the inner planet is circular,while the orbits of the outer
planets are elliptical.
This disproved the Einstein explanation.which state that the elliptical orbit of the planets
and the precession of the elliptical orbits of the planets are caused by the curved space,
which is caused by the mass of the central star.

Reason for the Exoplanet Tilt

The orbital path of the newly discovered exoplanets (alien planets) has greatly puzzled
the scientists.
Beginning from the period of Aristotle, it was strongly believed that exoplanets could
exist in the outer space, just like the Solar System, and continuous searches were being
conducted to locate them.
When the scientists were looking into the space to find an answer to the question as to
how planets were formed, they stumbled upon the massive rotation of dust and gases
around many stars in the space.
On the basis of this finding, it was strongly believed that when the giant space clouds
had shrunk, flattened and rotated, the massive core area could have become the Sun
and the dust and gases moving around it might have clustered here and there in due
course and led to the formation of other planets.
As per this theory, it was also believed that since the dust and gases close to the Sun
would evaporate due to its heat, all the planets in question would have formed at a
certain distance from the Sun.
In the year 1992, Aleksander Wolszczan of Poland discovered an exoplanet.
But, the scientific world refused to accept his discovery.
This was because, the planet discovered by Wolszczan was a star which was capable
of emitting radiation that was several times hotter than that of the Sun.
Moreover, this planet was closely orbiting the super hot star.
Hence, questions were raised like how could a planet form so close to a hottest star?
More importantly, how could that planet orbit the star in question under such an intense
heat, without getting evaporated?

This question was answered by a scientist, Dr. Marc Kuchner, that the planets closely
orbiting the hottest star could be carbon planets which were formed by diamond crust
several kilometres deep in their interiors.
However, it gave rise to a question, how could diamond form in the void of the outer
space?
At this point, scientists discovered many stars evaporating the gases that surround their
neighbouring stars.
In addition, the British scientists discovered a moon sized diamond crystal, at the core
of a dead star.
On the basis of this finding, I came to the conclusion that the planets are formed only at
the core of the evaporated stars.

Particularly, I had theorized that when the hottest stars attract the stars that are in a
burnt down state and evaporate the gaseous atmosphere surrounding them, the
diamond crystal at the core of these evaporated stars revolve around the hottest stars
as diamond planets.
On the basis of this theory, I had stated that presently all the planets including the earth,
that orbit the Sun and all the natural satellites that orbit these planets are those which
orbit the Sun as planets and satellites after being formed at the core of an evaporated
star and after the gases in their atmosphere got scattered in the space when they were
attracted by the gravitational force of the Sun.
At this point, the newly discovered exoplanets were completely contrary to the
expectations of the scientists. This was because, the scientists believed in the Dust Disk
Theory.
Particularly, as per this theory, when the giant clouds in the space shrank, flattened and
rotated, the massive core area could have become the Sun and the dust and gases
moving around it might have clustered here and there in due course and led to the
formation of other planets.
As per this belief, the scientists expected the planets to revolve parallel to the axis in
which the Sun, the central body, was rotating and also orbit it in the same direction.
But, many exoplanets behaved completely contrary to the expectations of the scientists.
The puzzled scientists were unable to offer an explanation for the revolution pattern of
these exoplanets.
For example, in our Solar System, Venus is rotating from east to west which is just
opposite to the rotation of Sun .

This means that unlike the other planets, including the earth, Venus rotates from east to
west.
Collision of another planet with Venus long time ago is cited as the reason for the
reversal of the spin direction of this planet in relation to the spin direction of the Sun.
However, my opinion is, Venus is a planet captured by the Sun and it can spin in any
direction.
For example, when a boy, who had fallen into a well, is lifted with the help of a rope, he
may come up spinning to his right side or left side. Similarly, any planet that is captured
by the Sun may follow the Sun by spinning in any direction.
Particularly, according to the Dust Disk Theory, as it is believed that all the planets and
the sub planets of the Solar System were formed as a single system and from the
beginning remained with the Sun, the Solar system is called as Solar Family and Solar
Setting.
But, according to my theory, all the planets and the sub planets of the Solar System
captured by the Sun due to the gravity of the Sun at different points of time.
So, my theory may be called as joined or collected planetary system.
Particularly, during the Suns travel, these planets were captured by the Sun when they
came closer to it. Hence, it is not necessary that they should synchronize with the
rotation of the Sun when they spin and orbit.
Similarly, as per the Dust Disk Theory, the scientists expected all the planets to orbit in
a plane which is parallel to the rotational axis of the Sun.
But, contrary to the expectations of the scientists, all the planets that orbiting the Sun is
revolving the sun at different angles from the angle of the rotational axis of the Sun.
For example, Mercury, a planet very close to the Sun, is orbiting the Sun in a plane with
a seven-degree inclination from the plane in which the earth is orbiting the Sun.
In the same way, Pluto, the farthest planet from the Sun, is orbiting the Sun in a plane
with a seventeen-degree inclination from the plane in which the earth is orbiting the
Sun.
few researchers believe that the rotational axis of the sun did not inclined,but the
orbiting plane of the planets are inclined.

The researchers explain that the gravitation force of a planet which is revolving around
the Sun from outside the Solar System and weighing ten times more than the earth, is
the reason for the planets orbiting the Sun from an inclined plane.
However, the said planet has not been discovered till date.
At this point, the rotation and the orbital path of the newly discovered exoplanets were
also found to be quite contrary to the expectations of the scientists.
For example, in the year 1995, the scientists were shocked when they saw for the first
time, an exoplanet which was orbiting a star much similar to our Sun through their
telescope.
The reason for this is, the said planet which was called 51-b Pegasi, was orbiting its star
in a galloping speed of once in four days, i.e., at eight times lesser distance than the
distance from which Mercury orbits the Sun.
The said exoplanet was inferred to be similar in size to that of Jupiter which belonged to
our Solar System and was very hot due to its proximity to its star.
So, this planet was known as Hot Jupiter.
Later,many hot Jupiters were found to be orbiting a number of similar stars.
As per the theory of Dust Disk, there is no possibility of dust and gases present near a
star, which could gather to form a planet.
Hence, it was suggested that hot jupiters which formed at a great distance from its star
might have migrated near it. This theory was also called Migration Theory.
A question arose as to why do planets migrate in this way.
As an answer to this question, it was believed that when the dust and gases
surrounding a star rotated and formed a planet, the hot jupiters migrated towards its star
due to the speed of rotation and contraction of the disk of dust.
According to this theory, the hot jupiters must be orbiting the central star, parallel to its
rotational axis.
Under these circumstances, a massive planet weighing ten times as much as Jupiter
had been discovered revolving once in three-and-a-half days around a star that was
located at a distance of 568 light years from the earth.
This planet, named as xo-3 b, had been found to be revolving around its star at an
angle of 37 degrees to the orbital axis of its star.
The scientists were unable to explain this in terms of the hot jupiters migration theory.
Similarly, a huge planet weighing one-and-a-half times as much as Jupiter had been
discovered revolving once in two days around a star that was located at a distance of a
thousand light years from the earth.
This planet, named as HAT-P-7, had been found to be revolving around its star at an
angle of 180 degrees to the orbital axis of its star.
In another study, the same planet had been found to be revolving around its star at an
angle of 86 degrees to the orbital axis of its star.
This means that, planet HAT-P-7 was found to be revolving around it star from pole to
pole, which was quite contrary to the disk of dust theory.

It was suggested that the reason for the planets to orbit their stars in different angles
was that, another planet might have collided with them and ejected them into an tolted
orbital path.
Under these circumstances, the scientists are puzzled over the finding that many
exoplanets are orbiting their stars in an angle quite different from the rotational axis of
those stars.
Till date, our Solar System had been considered as the main model and the rest of the
exoplanet families were just rare phenomena.
At this stage, many exoplanets discovered so far have been found to be orbiting their
star at an angle quite different from the rotational axis of those stars.
Hence, the scientists opine that now the other exoplanets have become the general
model and our Solar System has become an exceptional model.
But, according to my captured planets theory, it is a possible occurrence that planets
like Jupiter orbiting very close to the central star and similarly hot jupiters orbiting at a
different angle from the orbital axis of the central star.
This is because, as per my theory, all the planets of the Solar System have been
captured by the Sun.
This boils down to the fact that the Sun had attracted only those evaporated stars which
were moving closer to the path in which the Sun was travelling.
Hence, it is possible that the planets may be attracted from any direction.
In search of planet nine...

It is a common belief that all planets, including the Sun, were formed some forty-five
million years ago, from a circumstellar disk of dust which was rotating in the outer
space.

It is believed, in particular, that Sun came into being from the massive centre part of the
disk of dust and other planets were formed when the flat periphery of the disk
accumulated here and there.

On the basis of this theory, it was generally expected that all the other planets should be
revolving around the Sun in the same plane in which the Sun is rotating in its axis.

At this point, it was discovered that the Sun was rotating with a six-degree inclination.

But, Professor Dr. Konstantin Batygin, Dr. Michael Brown and their under-graduate
student Ms. Elizabeth Bailey offered a new theory that the Sun is not six-degree
inclined, but on the contrary, only the orbital plane of the other planets is inclined to the
extent of six degrees.

However, the fact remains that all the planets are orbiting the Sun at different angles.

Dr. Michael Brown states that the gravitational force of a yet-to-be-discovered planet
which is orbiting the Sun on the outer rim of the solar system, even farther away from
Pluto, is the reason for the planets revolving around the Sun in an inclined plane.

Particularly, this planet, which is called planet nine, is believed to be four times larger
than the earth and at the same time weigh ten times more than the earth itself. This has
been estimated by computer models created by Dr. Michaels team.

Moreover, Dr. Michael has said that the orbital path of this planet would have inclined
from the orbital plane of the other planets and set at an angle of thirty degrees.

To sum up, as per the Disk of Dust Theory, it is considered that there is absolutely no
possibility of the formation of a large planet beyond Neptune.

Thus, when a question arose as to how planet nine came into being in the far outer
Solar System, Dr. Michael suggested that it might have been formed at the inner
regeion of the Solar System and later ejected to its present location by Jupiter.

Again, when a question was raised as to how a planet that is ten times heavier than the
earth could curve the orbital path of the other planets, especially when Jupiter is three
hundred times and Saturn is ninety-five times heavier than the earth, Dr. Michael Brown
offered an explanation that since the orbital path of the planet in question is very big, it
is able to curve the orbital plane of the other planets.

At this juncture, six minor planets, similar to Pluto, were discovered beyond Neptune.

Moreover, it has been found out through the computers that the orbital path of these
minor planets was also set at a thirty-degree angle from the common orbital plane of the
other planets.

Dr. Michael Brown has reiterated that the gravitational force of Planet Nine is the reason
for the orbital path of these minor planets being set at a thirty-degree angle from the
common orbital plane of the other planets.

Similarly, Scott S. Sheppard of the University of Carnegie, Washington, discovered a

minor planet which was orbiting the Sun even farther away from Neptune.

Scott S. Sheppard suggested that the gravitational force of Planet Nine was the reason
for the orbital path of this minor planet being inclined.

On the basis of this finding, he expressed his hope of the existence of Planet Nine with
a ninety-percent probability.

While expressing his opinion about this theory, J.J. Kavelaars, a scientist in the
astronomical research centre of Canada, has stated that there is only one percent
possibility for the existence of Planet Nine.

In a desperate look out for Planet Nine, Dr. Michael Brown and Dr.Sheppard along with
their teams searched with the state-of-the-art telescopes in the direction where this
planet is believed to be existing.

But, despite searching in a very vast area, the planet could not be discovered.

However, Dr. Michael Brown has expressed hope that there is still a ten-percent
possibility for discovering this evasive planet.

Why the orbital path of the minor planets is more inclined from that of the other planets?

I had already stated that the forward movement of the Sun is the main reason for the tilt
in the orbital path of the planets revolving around the Sun in a sixty-degree angle.
I had also explained with an illustration that if crows (planets) start circling a giant-sized
yellow balloon (Sun) moving slowly in the sky, in an upward-downward motion, the
circling path of the crows (planets) will be inclined towards the direction in which the
balloon (Sun) moves.

At this point, in case some crows circle the same yellow balloon from a long distance in
a circular path, how would the circular path of these crows be?

The circular path of these crows will be highly elongated and will be more deviated from
the circling plane of the inner ring crows.

In a similar way, the orbiting path of the minor planets revolving around the Sun from a
long distance will be more deviated from the orbiting plane of the other inner planets.

Scientists firmly believed that a planet with a size similar to that of Neptune, existed at
the periphery of the Solar System.

However, a study conducted in March, 2014 with NASAs Infra-Red Rays Telescope,
ruled out the existence of such a planet.

NASA has declared that there is absolutely no possibility of such a planet existing at a
distance of ten thousand astronomical units (one astronomical unit is the distance
between the Sun and the earth, i.e., one hundred and fifty million kilometres) from the
Sun, that is similar to the size of Saturn which is ninety-five times larger than the earth.

Similarly, NASA has also declared that no planet similar to the size of Jupiter, i.e., three
hundred and eighteen times larger than the earth, exists at a distance of twenty-six
thousand astronomical units from the Sun.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_Nine

0000000

''But there is a possibility that Planet Nine doesn't exist and that some other explanation
accounts for the motion of objects that astronomers observe in the Kuiper Belt.
Whatever the outcome, Green said, the general public will have "a front row seat" for
the show-Jim Green Director of Planetary Science - NASA

Why do the planets of our solar system orbit the Sun in an inclined plane?
The moon is orbiting in a five-degree inclined plane from the orbital plane of the earth
around the Sun.
There is no explanation till date why the moon is orbiting the earth in a such a five-
degree inclined plane.
The reason for the moon orbiting the earth in a five-degree inclined plane is that, when
the moon is orbiting the earth, while the earth is revolving around the Sun, it is following
the Sun which travels in the space at a speed of twenty kilometres per second.
This means that when the Sun is moving forward in the space, all the planets orbit
around the Sun in an upward-downward movement.
Even though the planets travelling in a vertical path from the direction in which the Sun
is travelling, they are not orbiting the Sun in a ninety-degree angle. On the contrary,
they are actually orbiting the Sun in a sixty-two-degree angle.
The plane in which the planets orbit around the sun in such a way is called ecliptic
plane.
This is because, eclipses occur due to the passing of certain planets of the inner circle
between the Sun and the planets of the outer circle.
However, all the planets do not orbit in this common axis, but orbit with a deviation of
one or two degrees.
For example, Mercury which is closer to the Sun, orbits around the Sun in a seven-
degree inclination from this common plane.
Similarly, Pluto, the farthest planet from the Sun, is orbiting around the Sun in a
seventeen-degree inclination from this common plane.
Eris, a dwarf planet which is even farther away from Pluto, is orbiting around the Sun in
a forty-four-degree inclination from this common plane.
The Sun traveling in the space at a speed of twenty kilometres per second is the reason
for the planets orbiting the Sun in an inclined plane.
This means that the planets orbiting the Sun in an upward to downward direction,at the
same time the Sun is moving forward. This in turn forces the planets to chase the Sun
to revolve around it thereby resulting in the inclination of the orbital plane of the planets.
This can be effectively reiterated by an imaginary illustration.
Imagine a giant-sized yellow balloon in the sky.
Visualize some crows circling around it in an upward-downward motion.
In this situation, imagine that the giant yellow balloon is beginning to drift forward.
At this point, the crows which were circling the yellow giant balloon will be forced to
follow the balloon to circle it. This will result in a minor inclination and extension in the
circular path of the crows.
Likewise, the orbital path of the planets revolving around the Sun, which is traveling
forward, will also become inclined and elliptical.
At this juncture, also think of a sparrow circling one of those imaginary crows in an
upward-downward direction.
You can very well say that the circular path of the sparrow will also become elliptical
and inclined.
In the same manner, when the circular path of the earth which is orbiting the Sun in an
upward-downward direction changes to an inclined and elliptical path, the circular path
of the moon which is orbiting the earth in an upward-downward direction also becomes
inclined and elliptical.

The earth research report

It has been proved with evidence, that the explanation offered by the geologists
presently for the occurrence of earthquakes and tsunamis is wrong.
Particularly, the geologists believe that at present, the continents are drifting as
separate tectonic plates along with the ocean floor.
The geologists explain that earthquakes are caused only due to the rubbing of the
edges of the tectonic plates that drift apart along with the ocean floor.
The geologists explain that in a similar way, when the tectonic plates are drifting under
the sea, one rocky plate beneath another moves scraping against the one above it and
this causes the upper rocky plate to rise suddenly pushing up the sea water giving rise
to tsunami waves.
But, all these explanations have been proved as baseless by a global seismic chart
showing lakhs of places worldwide where earthquakes occurred.
Also, the satellite photographs which capture the variations of the floor level with
precision have also revealed the occurrence of earthquakes and tsunamis due to the
eruption of underground volcanoes.
Before studying these evidences, it is essential to review the explanations offered by the
geologists.
The geologists believed that specifically two hundred and fifty million years ago, prior to
breaking up and drifting to their present locations, all the seven continents had at one
time formed a single supercontinent which was called Pangaea.
The geologists also believed that this supercontinent was surrounded by a deep sea
area.
The geologists believed that later, hot magma from beneath the Pangaea
supercontinent gushed to the top, cooled and solidified and this magma went back into
the earth due to its increase in weight.
They also believed that this magma, which was found thousands of kilometers under
the earth, rotated like wheels in the opposite directions and caused the super continent
above to break up into two.
The geologists also believed that this led to the formation of two large continents
namely Laurasia and Gondwana a hundred and eighty million years ago, of which
Laurasia drifted towards the northern region and the continent of Gondwana drifted
towards the southern region.
The geologists believe that an ocean area called Tethys formed between these
continents, i.e., in the equatorial region.
The geologists also believe that eighty million years ago, the continent of Laurasia also
split into two, leading to the creation of the continents of North America and Eurasia,
which moved in the opposite directions of west and east respectively.
They also believed that as a result of the above, the North Atlantic Ocean region was
formed between these two continents.
The geologists also believe that in a similar way, after the split of the southern region of
the continent of Gondwana into many parts, these continents drifted towards the north.

Further, they also believed that particularly, due to the split in the western part of the
continent of Gondwana, the continents of South America and Africa were formed and
due to their respective drift towards north-west and north-east directions, North Atlantic
ocean region emerged between these two continents.
The geologists believed that the South American Continent which was drifting towards
north-west reached its current location only three million years ago.
In the same way, the geologists believe that the Alps mountain range came into being
due to the thrusting of the land region between the African and Eurasian Continents
caused by the collision of the African Continent which was said to be drifting towards
north-west, with the southern part of the European Continent.
The geologists also believe that in a similar way, India and Australia also broke away
from the Continent of Antarctica and drifted in the north-eastern direction.
The geologists believe that due to the collision of the Indian land area with the southern
part of the Asian Continent fifty million years ago, Himalayan mountain range rose
between these two continents by thrusting.
The geologists believe that even today, the magma under the earth becomes solid after
reaching the surface, forming a new sea floor in the volcanic range under the sea that
extends in the north-south direction, and is drifting in the opposite directions causing the
continents on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean also to drift apart in the opposite
directions along with the ocean floor.

The geologists are also of the opinion that when the continents drift separately along
with the ocean floor, friction is caused between their edges and earthquakes are
caused.
At this point, the geologists of NASA, the leading scientific research center of America,
prepared a graphical representation of the places world-wide where a total of 3,58,214
earthquakes occurred during the past 35 years from the year 1963 to 1998.
This global level graph on earthquakes had not recorded any continuous earthquakes in
the ocean region between the North American continent formed in the central part of the
Atlantic Ocean and drifting towards north with the ocean floor believed to be drifting
towards north and the South American continent formed in the central part of the
Atlantic Ocean and drifting towards north-west with the ocean floor believed to be
drifting towards north-west.
Hence, on the basis of the absence of continuous earthquakes in the ocean floor area
between the North American and South American continents, it has been proved with
concrete evidence that the ocean floor between these two continents is continuous and
the ocean floor between these two continents as well as the North American and South
American continents are stationary.
Similarly, the geologists believe that a hundred million years ago, India and Australia
were joined together and stuck with the continent of Antarctica. Later, new ocean floor
was formed around the continent of Antarctica and it drifted towards north and south
directions. India and Australia started to move in the north direction along with the
ocean floor that was drifting towards north.
India and Australia are located five thousand kilometers apart.
If India and Australia were together in the beginning and had drifted five thousand
kilometers apart as per their location today, these two continents must have been
moving on two separate ocean floors.
If India and Australia had been drifting separately towards north-eastern direction, a
series of earthquakes would have been caused for up to thousands of miles in the
ocean floor between these two continents.
But, no such series of earthquakes was recorded in the ocean floor area between those
two continents in the global seismograph published by NASA.
Thus, on the basis of non-occurrence of a series of earthquakes in the ocean region
between the continents of India and Australia, it is proved with the concrete evidence
that the ocean floor between these two continents is continuous and the ocean floor and
the continents between these two continents are stationary.
At this juncture, NASA released a chart stating it as an illustration of the movement of
the continental plates.
Even in that chart, it has been stated that they are still unsure as to what is actually
happening in the ocean floor region between the continents of India and Australia.
Moreover, they have offered contradictory explanations for the tsunami that rocked the
entire South Asia on 26.12.2004.
Particularly, in the report released by NASA on 10.3.2005, Dr. Richard Cross and Dr.
Benjamin Bang Cho have explained that the earthquake and tsunami were caused only
due to the sudden drifting of ocean floor of the Indian Continent under the Indonesian
Islands.
But, in the report released by NASA after three months, i.e., on 27.4.2005, the
geologists of NASA had stated that the earthquake and tsunami were caused only due
to the sudden drifting of ocean floor of the Australian Continent under the Indonesian
Islands.
Thus, it is proved beyond doubt that the geologists of NASA have offered an imaginary
explanation for the earthquake and tsunami on the basis of a mere hunch, without
knowing what was actually happening in the ocean floor area between the two
continents.
Similarly, it is proved with evidence that the geologists of the American Geological
Association, which is known as USGS, had offered a baseless and fictitious explanation
when an earthquake and tsunami rocked Haiti, an island situated in the Caribbean
group of islands on 12.01.2010.
Particularly, the Continent of North America, formed in the central part of the Atlantic
Ocean is believed to be moving towards west along with the ocean floor which is
supposed to be drifting towards west.
In the same way, the Continent of South America, formed in the central part of the
Atlantic Ocean is believed to be moving towards north-west along with the ocean floor
which is north-west to be drifting towards north-west.
Under these circumstances, a question arises as to how exactly the Caribbean group of
islands, which is located between these two continents, was formed.
Some geologists believe that the Caribbean group of islands would have formed due to
volcanic activity in the Pacific Ocean region a hundred million years ago, particularly at
the place where the Galapagos group of islands is situated now, and later the
Caribbean group of islands formed into a separate tectonic plate and started moving
towards east.
Under these circumstances, some geologists believe that the American Continents
moved separately in opposite directions towards west and during that period, the
bridge-like Central American land area had not formed between the continents. On
account of this, a gap existed between these continents and the Caribbean tectonic
plate entered into this gap. Later, the Central American land area rose from under the
sea and this created a land connection between the continents.
According to this theory called The Pacific Model, it is believed that the Caribbean
group of islands might be moving towards east.
Particularly, in the eastern region of the Caribbean group of islands, volcanic mountain
ranges have formed towards the north-south direction.

As per the The Pacific Model, an explanation is offered for the formation of volcanic
mountain ranges towards the north-south direction in the eastern region of the
Caribbean group of islands.
It says that, when the Caribbean group of islands was moving in the easterly direction,
the Atlantic Ocean floor heading towards the west went under the tectonic plate, melted
due to the extremely high temperature and the magma thus formed rose up penetrating
through the ocean floor and became volcanic mountains above the ocean floor.
Further, the geologists also believe that, ninety million years ago, the bridge-like
continuous Central American land area had not formed between the American
continents. During that period, a gap existed between these continents and the
Caribbean tectonic plate entering into this gap has been the reason for their present
location.
However, in 1971, Gregory S Horni and Bruce Simonson have discovered in the
mountainous region of Nicaragua which is situated at the Central American land area,
the bones of a dinosaur called Ornithopod that lived ninety to a hundred and twenty
million years ago during the mid-cretaceous era.
Geologist Professor Joan Ostram of Yale University, after examining the bones of the
dinosaur, has identified and confirmed that these bones, now kept in the Washington
Museum, belong to a dinosaur called Ornithopod.

This has proved with evidence that the land region of Central America situated between
the American Continents was continuous even before ninety million years and the
dinosaurs were migrating between the American Continents through this region.
In the same way, Manuel Ilduraldy Vincent and Zulma Gasparini , paleontologists of the
Cuban Museum has discovered the bone fossils of a herbivore dinosaur that lived
during the cretaceous era, i.e., a hundred and fifty million years ago, in the Organos
mountain range located in the western part of Cuban Island of the Caribbean group of
islands that are formed in a range between the American Continents.
Through this, it has been proved beyond doubt that as the sea level was low a hundred
and fifty million years ago, the American Continents and the Caribbean group of islands
had land connections and the dinosaurs were migrating through that region.
As a result, it has been proved with evidence that the explanations offered by the
geologists saying that ninety million years ago, a gap existed between the American
continents and the Caribbean tectonic plate entered through it were baseless and
imaginary theories.
At this point, some other geologists have a notion that the Caribbean group of Islands
might have formed in the Atlantic Ocean region itself and moving in the western
direction, they might have reached the current location.
This theory is called The Atlantic Model.
But, there is no evidence for the presence of a significant number of volcanic mountains
in the Atlantic Ocean region similar to those present in the Galapagos group of islands
in the Pacific Ocean region. So, the geologists in favor of The Atlantic Model could not
explain where exactly in the Atlantic Ocean region did the Caribbean group of Islands
form.
Hence, the geologists who support the Atlantic Model believe that the volcanic eruptions
responsible for the formation of the Caribbean group of Islands might have disappeared
over time.
However, the geologists who believe in the theory of The Atlantic Model are unable to
explain how the volcanic mountain ranges in the eastern part of the Caribbean islands
facing the north-south direction came into being.
Under these circumstances, a few other geologists have offered a new theory that the
Caribbean group of islands might be an in situ model.
Hence, it boils down to the fact that the geologists, who state that the Caribbean group
of islands is drifting as a tectonic plate, have no idea as to where the Caribbean group
of islands was formed and in which direction it is heading.
At this juncture, the geologists of the American Geological Association, which is known
as USGS, had offered a baseless explanation for the earthquake and tsunami which
rocked Haiti, an island situated in the Caribbean group of islands on 12.01.2010 that the
earthquake in Haiti was caused only by the friction between the tectonic plates during
the movement of the American and Caribbean tectonic plates.
Specifically, the geologists of the American Geological Association, which is known as
USGS, believe that the Caribbean group of islands is drifting as a tectonic plate, but
since the geologists of the USGS Association do not know where the Caribbean
tectonic plate was formed and in which direction it is heading, they avoid any direct
mention of where the Caribbean tectonic plate is heading and state that the North
American Continent is drifting towards west and on account of this movement, the
Caribbean tectonic plate is moving towards east with respect to the North American
Continent. The geologists of the USGS organization explain that this caused friction
between the tectonic plates resulting in the occurrence of earthquake and tsunami in the
Island of Haiti.
How can this be a correct and acceptable explanation?
In fact, it is a truth that the geologists of the USGS organization are not aware of what is
happening in the ocean floor region between the American Continents.
To conceal their ignorance, the geologists of the USGS organization have given an
ambiguous explanation regarding the direction in which the Caribbean tectonic plate is
drifting, thereby tactfully avoiding a direct reply.
This has brought to limelight that the geologists of the USGS organization are ignorant
of the reason for the occurrence of earthquake and tsunami in the Island of Haiti.
The fact, it has been proved with evidence through a global seismograph, that the
ocean floor and the continents are stationary and the ocean floor region between the
continents is continuous.
Also, the fact that that the earthquake and tsunamis were caused only by volcanic
eruptions below the surface of the earth has been discovered through the images
captured by a satellite that recorded the ground level variations.
thanks,
scientist.g.ponmudi
chennai
india