Composition of atmosphere BEFORE disaster

How do bubbles in amber reveal the truth about our planet's past?

 

Anyone can see bubbles in amber by picking up amber and looking closely. But few people know that if you take the contents of a bubble for analysis, you can find out the composition of the atmosphere many years ago. And, in fact, this is what various scientists did, but they came to completely different conclusions. 

 

For example, an international team of researchers led by Ralf Tappert from the University of Innsbruck analyzed amber in 2013 and found that the planet had low oxygen levels, namely from 10 to 16%. This is official information. 

 

I categorically disagree with these results and my compelling argument is...  World Ocean. The fact is that the ocean alone provides a huge amount  oxygen. And also, if there was amber, it means it was obtained from trees, that is, some trees already grew on the planet. And it is worth noting the fact that no one cut them down, as people do in our time. And since there was an ocean then and there is an ocean now, and trees grew now and then, then there could not be less oxygen than there is today. That is, the probability of releasing more oxygen is more than 90%. This means that scientists from the University of Innsbruck made a mistake in the study.

 

Scientists from the US Geological Survey, in 2009, came to completely different conclusions than their colleagues from the University of Innsbruck. Namely, their studies of amber showed that there was 35% oxygen.

 

And, of course, all scientists indicate the dating of amber and, most often, it is millions of years ago. Moreover, the range is from 40 to 240 million years. And they always use radiocarbon dating to determine dating. I am personally familiar with this analysis and once conducted the experiment. Namely, he gave a piece of wood from the frame of a painting of a good replica of Van Gogh to the radiocarbon analysis laboratory. After all, everyone knows when Van Gogh was born. So, radiocarbon analysis showed that the piece of wood that I gave for examination is more than 20,000 years old. Since then I no longer believe in radiocarbon dating. This is why I question the age of amber in both studies. 

 

So we have an equation with 3 variables, oxygen, nitrogen and carbon dioxide.

 

O2 + N2 + CO2 = vibrant fauna and flora

 

And by the method of logic we come to the following conclusions. CO2 could not be more than 2%, otherwise mammals would not be able to breathe normally. Right? Of course it's true. But the fauna could not photosynthesize  more oxygen than there is CO2 available for this. After all, photosynthesis reactions use proportional quantities of CO2 and O2.

 

It is worth noting that now the air contains 78% nitrogen, but nevertheless, we do not have such a vibrant fauna as 5500 years ago (before the disaster). What does this mean? 

 

This suggests that the proportion of nitrogen in the air was no greater than it is now(!) Note this important observation.

 

In fact, I'm almost close to the answer by solving the equation logically.

 

1. Nitrogen < 78%

 

2. The formula ratio of CO2 and O2 is the same as now

 

It follows that we have 3 options for the composition of the air 5500 years ago (option 3 from scientists from the US Geological Survey).

 

1. The composition was absolutely the same as now, but with greater density. Like a cylinder with more compressed oxygen.

 

2. There was a little more oxygen, as well as carbon dioxide, due to a decrease in the proportion of nitrogen. 

 

O2 - 25%, N2 - 73%, CO2 < 2%

 

And the air was also denser.

 

3. And this option corresponds  US Geological Survey research. 

 

O2 - 35%, N2 - 60%, CO2 < 5%

 

I disagree with the third option and with the research  USGS for one simple reason. Namely, O2 and CO2 are directly proportional. We cannot increase the share of O2, because then the share of CO2 will increase. But this is impossible, because the share of CO2 > 2% leads to  difficulty breathing. And more than 5% leads to death.  That is why the oxygen composition could not greatly exceed 21%. Most likely, scientists incorrectly interpreted their studies of amber, not taking into account the density of air. 

 

In general, our research methods for organic chemistry are still incorrect and scientists are frankly screwing up. Why, when publishing the results of their so-called research, they did not think logically about the proportional distribution of CO2 and O2 is unclear. If oxygen were 35%, this means that there would be either a CO2 deficiency in the atmosphere and all plants would die, or CO2 would be >2% and then all animals would die. This is elementary obvious.

 

I am inclined to the concept of denser (saturated) air because it does not contradict the law of conservation of energy. The turbulent fauna must have produced more oxygen than in modern times. And he couldn’t go anywhere, but had to remain in the atmosphere, expanding, filling the “balloon”. But the composition of the air should have been according to the “golden proportion”, as it is now, in our time.

 

And, continuing to think logically, we come to the conclusion that such an oxygen density could increase internal beneficial antioxidants. properties in mammals, increasing their life expectancy and health and... accordingly, size. 

 

And when the disaster occurred, which I describe in my book "C.O.N.N.E.C.T.I.N.G P.O.I.N.T.S" then the air density decreased, and antioxidant reactions became much less, which is why the flora and fauna began to decrease, both in size and in the timeline of life.