Duration of migration can be inferred from brain rinse cycles, which are cycles of exchange of blood and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) in the brain. In case of planets like Earth, cerebrospinal fluid is a salty ocean water while blood is generally magma. If scaled up from the rinse cycle of a human brain which lasts 20s, the transfer on Earth lasts 7 days: $\displaystyle {T \over {T_x}_h} T_x = {20\,s \over 50\,y} 1512000\,y = 604800\, s = 7\, days$ where T is the period of human rinse cycle, T_x is the period between strong evolution pulses on Earth of 3rd order (general oscillation) and T_xh is T_x on human scale, which is equal to average human lifespan over the course of evolution. Note that T_x is much shorter than the age of Earth's body of matter. Even though I believe the same body of Earth is reused between incarnations, this period might not represent the average lifetime of Earth's soul (gravitational maximum) in Earth's body, rather a temporary loss of consciousness. However, during hypothesized embryogenic neurogenesis, this is the effective average lifetime. Note that the period of 7 days is equal to the rotation period of Sun's core, which should temporarily collapse with every 2nd order cycle.

Note that this is also my expected lifetime in current incarnation.

Other possible years are 2031 (1981+50), 2101 (2017+84), 2063.8 (1981+82.8), 2099.8 (2017+82.8) and, out of these, years 2031 and 2063 may have some significance (years 2101 and 2099 probably imply I would have to live to age 119±1 which I consider unlikely). Year 2031 is also unlikely for the end, but it may be an important year (at least for me) as I have previously hypothesized another change in my soul's energy level at that time. There is some possibility for my own death at that time but in that case I will probably reincarnate on the surface again and live for about 36 years. I do not however claim I am the anti-christ of the 6th Judgment day on Earth, but whoever it is, I believe the person should be living on Earth already and the above calculations should not be far off.

The two moons of Mars, Phobos and Deimos, are likely the remains of a single moon split during this process on Mars. In that case, they should be similar in composition, have equal inclination (relative to Mars' equator) and axial tilt. Indeed, they do have equal inclination (≈1°), axial tilt (0°) and they apparently are of similar composition.

This energy is likely to be in the form of mantle plumes, however, it would probably be more appropriate to refer to synchronicity rather than use cause-effect relationships, as causality is hypothesized to be very relative during strong evolution. Therefore, the build-up of mantle plumes could precede the collapse, even for millions of years if that is necessary. Similar is valid for other expected events, wherever the cause-effect relationships are used here one should consider these very relative.

The moons (those with a distinct gravitational maximum) of a planet (and planets to star) generally indicate polarization, and the strength of a magnetic field of a host body in such system is likely to be proportional to the number of its moon charges.

This has happened 5 times already in Earth's history (with every major extinction), suggesting that Earth, in one interpretation, had multiple moons. If current Earth-Moon system is scaled Sun-Mars system (as Moon's orbit relative to Earth suggests - being scaled Mars' orbit relative to the Sun), it appears there should have been exactly 3 more moons at appropriate orbitals - Mercury moon (1 polarized large scale graviton), Venus moon (1 polarized graviton) and the Earth moon (2 gravitons). However, depending on mass, fusion of orbitals (moons) may be possible (analysis of fossil records could reveal constraints on the number of moons and their masses). In another interpretation, thus, a single moon may be involved, one that is losing energy (gravitons) and jumping to a higher orbital with each event - note that this implies loss of internal energy and subsequent surface healing at the exit point, with the mass similarly absorbed by Earth. Tectonic plates may be the result of mantle breaking due to expansion and moon graviton absorption. However, first expansion might not be associated with neurogenesis but with the creation of mantle/core discontinuity which had occurred a couple (likely two) billion years ago.

In case of outer Solar System the gaseous planets take the role of the Sun while their moons form similarly to terrestrial (inner) planets.

The dust absorption will not be homogeneous (partially due to magnetic fields involved) and concentration at the poles could be negligible. The Fe oxides covering the surface of Mars may be the best evidence for this. Instead of meteoritic origin, most of surface iron may have been released from the Sun during collapses and reacted with oxygen from the frozen (and at times melting) troposphere, forming rust. Hadn't this been the final stage in Mars' formation, it would still have a complete moon, a continuously present global magnetic field dipole and breathable atmosphere. The deposits of ejecta on planets will depend on whether the local magnetic field is present. Mars' global magnetic dipole is gone for a long time now, and if the Sun indeed periodically ejects heavy particles, these would accumulate on Mars (even if complete wave absorption does not occur locally). If Martian troposphere has compressed, partially solidified and was covered with iron afterwards, areas on mars could have thick layers of CO₂/water ice (not limited to the poles), covered with oxidized iron, significantly more at the equatorial region. In another paper, I have predicted that the layer of ice should have an average thickness of 1500 m, all this has been recently confirmed - a massive layer of ice, 1500 m thick on average, covered with dust, in the equatorial region. Dust deposits on ice are 300-600 m thick, how plausible is that it all came from meteorites?

If, in the process, collapsing Moon's graviton is converging to a ring-like form (if it wasn't already in such form), noticeable long-lived scars on the crust may be formed. Note also that the Moon's maximum or large scale graviton can be a superposition of multiple quanta. If these are in a two-dimensional ring form during collapse, the recession should create linear rifts on the surface of the planet roughly parallel to equator (perpendicular to magnetic dipole axis), at or near the equator, and with a diameter somewhat larger than the diameter of the maximum. The rift would likely cause eruptions of magma on the surface before it is healed. On Mars, Valles Marineris could be one evidence of this. It is a 4000 km long system of canyons with a straight rift ≈2000 km long, parallel to, and near the, equator. The rift indicates that the diameter of the absorbed moon maximum was roughly half of Earth's moon (or Mars's core) diameter. Apparently, on Mars, the maximum has also been fragmented into 3 quanta, each 1/3 or possibly 1/2 of the next larger quantum. Fig. \fig1: Rifts on Mars, possibly created by its last absorbed moon maximum This is shown in Fig. \fig1. As expected, the rifts are almost perfectly straight, any imperfections should be the result of tectonic activity, erosion. It is also apparent that Valles Marineris was once filled with out-flowing liquid - as predicted, this should have been lava, although it may have been filled with water too some time later. It would thus be interesting to analyse and date the basalt in Valles Marineris. The fragmentation into 3 quanta probably should correspond to first 3 orders of general oscillation of the Solar System. Although these cycles are synchronized, synchronization must be relative, hence the fragmentation in space/time. On Earth, first rift may be created in period 2029 - 2040, second in 2048 - 2055 and last in 2061 - 2066. When polarized, gravitational maximum may have low gravity but strong electro-magnetic potential. Its polarized space also has a large spin momentum (highest at the maximum). As such, it will absorb and concentrate plasma about the maximum (oscillating between the poles). However, if superposition of gravitons is involved (or oscillation of a single graviton), multiple maxima will exist at different radii. If associated magnetic fields are anti-aligned the plasma could be concentrating inside the outer maximum and near the centre. This is illustrated in Fig. \fig2. Fig. \fig2: Plasma trapped between outer and inner gravitational maxima Both, plasma and the ring are at high temperature and any contact with neutral matter will cause melting and vaporization. The bulge, or concentrated mass, could be low at the start of recession. The recession will not only cause melting but redistribution of mass and may induce explosions in pressurized zones. With significant energy this will lead to ground collapse on one place and elevation/fracturing of ground on the other. All these features are present on Mars, as shown in Fig. \fig3 (arrows indicate, from left to right: ground elevation/fracture, central bulge imprint and possible ground collapse), and can be associated with creation of Valles Marineris. The whole valley complex on the right and Tharsis region on the left have likely been created during the same event. These suggest that maximum was moving to the left as it was descending into Mars (rotating relative to south pole). Fig. \fig3: Valles Marineris and nearby ground, image source: USGS The recession of a moon maximum is coupled with the recession of a global magnetic dipole of the planet and the two magnetic fields should be aligning at time of recession. Rotation is thus not surprising. While rough dipole orientation at time of entrance will remain fossilized in the rift orientation, the magnetic field itself is unlikely to fossilize in rocks formed in the event, due to recession. On Mars, apparently, the angle of the maximum dipole at time of entrance was ~15° from geographic north-south, however, it's rotation suggests Mars' dipole was aligning with geographic north and south. But Mars is not the only body in the Solar System scarred by gravitational maxima (assuming this is the correct interpretation). Saturn's moon Iapetus has a 1300 km long equatorial ridge, and, interestingly, also has sections with 3 near parallel ridges. Like rifts on Mars, this is very hard to explain with common theories on planetary formation and development but easy with collapsing gravitational maxima. Creation of ridges on Iapetus, instead of rifts, suggests these were created as the soul (graviton) was exiting the body. Note, however, that I do not favour the above interpretation for at least some parts of Mars' Tharsis region. I believe at least Syria Planum area (including Noctis Labyrinthus) has been created differently, as described in another paper.

Plants here should probably be taken very relative, depending on pressures and temperatures, plants in deep Earth may be far from resembling plants on the surface. However, as noted before, areas in the mantle are hypothesized to exist where pressures and temperatures would not differ much from those on the surface or in the oceans. This should be enabled with presence of multiple gravitational maxima (real or induced) at different radii inside Earth (so the gravity is, at some point, cancelled between them).

I have shown previously that thickness of Earth mantle layers is proportional to periods between major mass extinctions. Collapse into 3 maxima is further justified due to the fact that precisely 3 discontinuities in the mantle require small adjustment for layers to match these periods perfectly. Even the calculated 3 adjustments, each being 1/2 of the larger, correlate well with the sizes of 3 rifts on Mars (Valles Marineris).

Note that years here are mapped to particular atmospheric CO₂ concentration, this is based on the assumption that atmospheric CO₂ currently follows the rate of evolution on Earth, the period between impacts is shortening in such way that the amount of CO₂ increase stays fixed to 50 ppm per cycle.

Here, I assumed average equatorial radius is equal to distance from navel to the left or right of the body.

Note 1:

Some inscriptions were found in Khufu pyramid, however, these certainly look like a hoax and can hardly be even called inscriptions, especially when compared to inscriptions in other pyramids. No mummies were found either in two greatest pyramids. I do not consider that important (mummies were missing from most pyramids), but some claim that Khufu and Khafre were buried outside of the pyramids out of fear their bodies would be defiled by people (they were cruel rulers). That does not seem to make sense - to build the greatest tomb to secure afterlife and then decide to be buried somewhere else as an anonymous? How angry would then these people be, knowing they've built these pyramids for nothing? Given the reputation of Khufu and Khafre, I would not be surprised they did not treat these pyramids as sacred and untouchable as others did. They even might have claimed that the pyramids were built for them.

Note 2:

That Egyptians were trying to imitate the great pyramids becomes obvious when one compares the building angle of the pyramids, chronologically.

• 2600 BC - building the pyramid at Meidum with inclination (51°50'35") almost identical to the inclination of the Great (Khufu) Pyramid (51°50'40"),
• 2600 BC - believing the Meidum was stable they've started building Bent pyramid in Dahshur with an even steeper angle (54°) to imitate the Khafre pyramid (53°), but in the meantime the Meidum pyramid collapsed and they've decided to decrease the angle to 43°22',
• 2580 BC - convinced now that this new angle is stable (Bent pyramid did not collapse) the Egyptians built Red pyramid at Dahshur from the start at exactly the same angle as the one Bent was completed at (43°22').

Now, Khufu and Khafre pyramids were supposedly built after the Red pyramid (completed 2560 BC and 2530 BC, respectively). Why would they now start building their greatest pyramids at an angle proven to be unstable on a smaller pyramid? Especially when the angle they've used on their largest pyramid (Red) so far, was proven stable? They did not dare to risk anything with the Red pyramid, and that one is still much smaller than Khufu and Khafre pyramids. It is clear why they would not want to risk this - the construction took long time and if the pyramid would collapse midway through construction there simply wouldn't be enough time to build another one before the pharaoh dies. If they did have the need for that special angle (why, if not trying to imitate something sacred that leads to afterlife?), would they not try building a stable smaller pyramid at that angle and then build the larger pyramid instead of risking so much? The pyramid of Menkaure (the 3rd pyramid in Giza) which has almost the same angle (51°20'25") as the Khufu pyramid would be a good candidate for such a pyramid, but this one was built after the Khufu and Khafre pyramids, ≈ 2500 BC (Menkaure, or Mykerinus, was a son of Khafra and grandson of Khufu). The above alone, for me, is a very convincing proof that Egyptians did not build Khufu and Khafre pyramids. These two must be the oldest pyramids in Egypt and Menkaure is only the best imitation Egyptians ever managed to construct (although it's still possible they weren't original builders of this one either, they certainly did maintenance work on Giza monuments, but the origin should be questionable). Here's what probably happened:

Khufu did not want to risk building another pyramid like the Red as he wasn't convinced this is an imitation good enough to secure afterlife. Thus, he arranged a secret chamber in the Great Pyramid, wrote 'Friends of Khufu' on the wall, and, afterwards, arranged for the chamber to be accidentally discovered, together with the message - which was supposed to convince people the gods built the pyramid for him. People might have suspected he was behind this, and that was one reason why they didn't love him much. He probably also forced people to do maintenance work on the outer walls of the pyramid as he assumed the original was smooth and polished on the outside. Then he might have told people that the other pyramid was, likewise, built for his descendant, although I wouldn't be surprised if there is a secret chamber in Khafre pyramid too, with a message 'Friends of Khafre'. After their deaths, it may be that anger rather than pure robbery was behind the removal of their bodies from the tombs of the two pyramids.

Note that, unlike the pyramids, Sphinx is carved out of bedrock. While 3D-printing (deposition of material layer by layer) was likely done by nature itself, some kind of 3D-carving apparatus might have been used for the original construction. As a side note - like everything else, we obviously did not invent 3D-printing either but I'm sure it has been patented as human invention. It's really a wonder how Earth has not been sued for copyright infringement so far (even though it's obvious who is the original creator).

If one looks at open pit human mines today one can notice the step-like layering. The original Sphinx base may have been created similarly. Perhaps the layering continued up to the top where the top of the Sphinx' head is now but the top collapsed due to erosion of limestone (eg. with elevated levels of CO₂/carbonic acid).

When humans from Earth go to Mars they will likely settle near caves (ie. lava tubes) too, for the same reason (unfavourable conditions for life on surface at the time).

Note 1:

If homo.β evolved on Mars too, other species that have evolved on Earth must have evolved on Mars too, albeit probably of different scale. This makes one wonder - are similar but differently scaled species like Carcharodon Carcharias and Carcharodon Megalodon actually same species, but from different planets? If the constructors of the pyramid were fleeing from destruction on their own planet, most likely they brought some embryos with them (Noah's ark). We could thus pinpoint the time of that arrival through sudden spikes and curiosities in fossil record. For this creature particularly, the time of arrival would have to be >= 16 million years ago (Mya), assuming of course the species of Carcharodon Carcharias was brought from Mars and Megalodon evolved on Earth. Assuming the ratio of Earth's surface area to Mars's surface area is equal to the ratio of sizes between species, the ratio is: $\displaystyle {4\pi{R_m}^2 \over 4\pi{R_e}^2} = {{R_m}^2 \over {R_e}^2} = {{3389.5}^2 \over {6371}^2} = 0.283$ R_m = volumetric mean radius of Mars [km]
R_e = volumetric mean radius of Earth [km] Assuming the average size of Carcharias 4.23 m and 6.1 m maximum, this gives 14.9 m average and 21.5 maximum for the Megalodon, agreeing well with estimates one can derive from the fossil record. The same ratio should be valid for homo species. Assuming 1.74 m for the average height of Earth.homo.β, the average height of Mars.homo.β should be: $\displaystyle 1.74\, m\, *\, 0.283 = 0.49242\, m \approx 0.5\, m$ Mars.homo.sapiens, being the result of β fusion, should be roughly twice the height of Mars.homo.β, ≈ 1 m. This size agrees completely with the most reliable eyewitness reports. Using the same ratio one obtains the average height of future Earth.homo.sapiens - 3.5 m. Note that Venus.homo.sapiens should be roughly the same size as Earth.homo.sapiens. Apparently, bones of giant humans 3.5 m tall, have been discovered on Earth. This would have to be Venus.homo.sapiens. The fact that such bones were discovered only in one or two locations in France in limited number strongly suggests that this is not the ancestor of Earth.homo.β, going in favor of the hypothesis. Note also that, even though human evolution is generally progressive, it has to oscillate (eg. Neanderthals were bigger and had bigger brains than modern human, even modern human had a bigger brain 30000 years ago), it is thus possible that human size will temporarily increase to even larger height before it settles on 3.5 m. "A vidjesmo ondje i divove, sinove Anakove, koji potječu od divova: sami sebi izgledali smo kao skakavci, a takvi bijasmo i u njihovim očima."

Numbers 13:33

Note that magnetic permeability of space (μ) does not change because its equivalent (G/c_n² = G/c₁²) in the spin gravitational vector (S) does not change.

A valid assumption, considering that Moon's orbit around Earth seems to be entangled with the orbit of Mars around the Sun - the nature of this entanglement will change only once the Moon's gravitational maximum collapses into Earth. This may or may not be inconsistent with fossil records (I haven't checked), but interpretations of these records assume Earth did not have other moons or that the current Moon did not significantly change mass over time - an assumption which may not be true and can lead to more inconsistencies considering fossil records from different ages.

Note 1: Time t_p is not adjusted for existence pulses which temporarily affect decay rates of elements (and orbital decays equally), but neither is the 485.4 Mya extinction estimate, so in this context, adjustment (≈ -10my) is irrelevant. Note 2: Apparently, there are claims associating certain fossil records with advanced civilizations (including alleged human shoe prints from the Ordovician period), but I have not seen convincing evidence nor serious research regarding these claims, either to confirm or refute the hypothesis. Sadly, what I did saw, regarding such claims, was the competition to sustain or prove the dogmatic viewpoints of two opposing sides. None of them did rise above the ego-centric standpoint to even consider humans from another planet. Note 3: There are two issues with such big age - tectonic plate movement and age of rocks. If the builders did construct the pyramid as a signal to us, they must have known at what time humans would evolve on the planet and be able to decode it. With such knowledge, they would've surely accounted for the movement of plates too. This may not be a big problem for homo.sapiens, but it probably rules out homo.beta as the constructor - unless the constructor was unconsciously guided, which should certainly not be ruled out as a possibility (I am often guided myself). Another problem is the age of rocks used for construction and the age of the base the pyramid was built on, which probably rules out this age as age of construction and possibly indicates that encoded age should not be interpreted as such. There is a possibility that the pyramid was constructed more recently when its location matched precisely the current speed of light, but it is also entirely possible that this particular location is actually stable relative to equator and it does not change significantly over time - perhaps only oscillating by a small amount. In any case, the location is not a coincidence - the area is the geographical centre of [all land surfaces on] Earth. Initially, it was calculated that the Great Pyramid is at the actual location of the centre and that it was likely to be the "last of the present land surface of the earth" to survive a cataclysmic event, due to its positioning. This goes in favour of the hypothesis that it was built to survive the cataclysmic events of neurogenesis. More recent calculations put the geographical centre north of Giza, in Turkey. However, this does not rule out that Giza was the centre at the time of construction or that the imprecise centring was intentional in order to encode the speed of light. In case of neurogenesis, however, where the cells are transferred to the poles, it is the latitudinal location that matters. Here, the Great Pyramid is probably in the optimal position, perhaps not even due to the fact that a meridian crossing the Great Pyramid would pass over more land than at any other location on Earth, but because it is likely the position where the magnetic field strength of the collapsing maximum(s) would be minimal. The position of Moon's maximum absorption should be the position of planet's magnetic field strength minimum. This position can be determined - Moon's inclination of 28.58° to Earth's equator should be the latitude of impact (Moon maximum absorption) on Earth. This can be either south or north of the equator. If it impacts south hemisphere, the safest location is thus 28.58° north of equator on the opposite side of Earth. The location of the Great Pyramid is 29°58' (29.98°) N. A remarkable agreement. Small correction, if necessary, (29.98 - 28.58 = 1.4°) could come from changes in Moon's obliquity (1.54° to ecliptic, 6.68° to orbit). But again, small deviation does not make a large difference in security and was perhaps intentional in order to encode the speed of light precisely. Note that Valles Marineris on Mars is south of the equator, going in favour of the hypothesis. Note also that inclination of Phobos/Deimos of 1° doesn't seem to correspond to latitude of rifts of Valles Marineris (largest rift is centred at ≈10° S, while the middle of all 3 rifts is at ≈6.6°), however, these rifts correspond to embryonic neurogenesis, while Phobos/Deimos are likely the remains of a moon created for adult neurogenesis. Indeed, there is a small rift north of, and parallel to, these 3 rifts, located at 1° S, equal to Phobos/Deimos inclination. Dating of the rifts and Phobos/Deimos should provide clues on the end of embryonic neurogenesis and start/end of adult neurogenesis on Mars. The pyramid was not built to survive the pending major extinction, but either all of them or, most likely, the one occurring at time of construction. This indicates that previous moons of Earth had to have similar (roughly equal) inclination to current one and that previous moon maximum absorptions since the time of pyramid construction likely occurred some 30° south of the equator on the opposite side of Earth. The roughly equal inclination of moons agrees with the hypothesis that orbitals of Earth moons are scaled down orbitals of terrestrial planets (current orbit of the Moon is the scaled down Mars' orbit of the Sun) which also have roughly the same orbital inclination. Note that difference in inclination between Mars and Venus is 1.5°, very close to 1.4° difference above (between Great Pyramid and Moon's inclination) and may explain it, especially because Venus' inclination is 1.5° higher than that of Mars, as required for explanation. If Mars is entangled with Earth's current moon (Luna) and the moon that collapsed during the time the pyramid was built was entangled with Venus, and assuming the pyramid was built during a major extinction - the pyramid must have been built during the 3rd major extinction, ≈252 million years ago.

Of course, there was a large extinction 260 Ma (End-Capitanian), which was likely the result of splitting of the major energy level - second extinction being the Permian-Triassic event 252 Ma (major mass extinction). Note the significance of error margins, if one uses 0.63/0.66 MAU: $\displaystyle v_r = {v_r}_{avg} = \left(0.66 - 0.63\right) {r_{\scriptscriptstyle M} \over \Delta T_{E_{img}}} = 1.506\, {m \over y}$ giving: $\displaystyle \Delta t_p = (r - r_p) {1 \over v_r} = 200435217\,\, years$ A difference of roughly 60 My compared to previous result. However, again, a major mass extinction occurred 201 Ma, so if the event is indeed tied to extinctions as hypothesized, even with large uncertainties, it would likely be one of these two as there are no major extinctions in between, only one larger extinction event at 230 Ma (Carnian Pluvial event), characterized by the first appearance of dinosaurs (~230 Ma). Note that the actual period may be 0.63 - 0.66, the period 0.656370656370 - 0.633584158866 should be understood as the period during which the v_r did not change significantly, it doesn't include the compression of time at the start and end of the period. Note also how each calculation gave a result equal to the time of some large mass extinction. That I have to interpret as another signal that the pyramid is correlated with an extinction, as assumed initially.

Note that the slowdown is good evidence for the 4.5i (4.25) billion years Solar System cycle. Although the data suggests overall decreasing magnitude, the decrease should also oscillate, having the form of general scalar oscillation in CR, which, taking into account the 1st and 2nd order (scale) only, is: $\displaystyle {dr \over dt} = v_r = A \sin{\left({{(r + {\phi}_1)/MAU - 0.63} \over {0.69 - 0.63}} 2\pi\right)} \left[1 + B \sin{\left({{\left(r + {\phi}_2\right)/MAU - 0.63} \over {0.69 - 0.63}} 2\pi f\right)}\right]$ $\displaystyle A = {v_r}_{avg} * {\pi \over 2}$ $\displaystyle 0.63\, \text{MAU} \leq r \geq 0.69\, \text{MAU}$ A = amplitude of the 1st order oscillation (4.5 Gy cycle)
B = amplitude of the 2nd order oscillation (yearly)
ϕ₁ = phase shift of the 1nd order oscillation
ϕ₂ = phase shift of the 2nd order oscillation
f = frequency of the 2nd order oscillation First term here [A sin()] is due to a decrease in the gravitational constant (G) as part of the 4.5 Gy cycle, while the second term [B sin()] is due to orbital eccentricity as part of the annual G oscillation. I have previously calculated (in the analysis of the Solar System) the amplitude and phase shift of yearly G oscillation. This oscillation is small and orbital eccentricity has surely been taken into account in the analysis of measurements so the 2nd term of the equation can be discarded. There is a possibility that the 2nd order oscillation has a different source and yearly G change is the 3rd order oscillation but I do not see what could be the cause of it. Calculated v_ravg = 1.143942403367 m/y gives results in good agreement with calculated current v_r (0.62 m/y) and measurements of a set 1 performed 1961. - 1997. (ranging + landers). For φ₁ = 0 and r = 0.656370656370 MAU (current Earth-Sun distance), the equation gives: $\displaystyle v_r = 0.6666\, {m \over y}$ Phase shift of 0 is unlikely though, a small φ₁ (0.00025 MAU) would decrease v_r to the previously calculated value (0.62 m/y).

Source code:

Note that, with v_r decreasing at predicted rate it would take almost 3.2 billion years to reach 0: $\displaystyle t = \int{dt} = \int\limits_{r_1}^{r_2} {1 \over v_r} dr$ using substitution (making integration non-dimensional): $\displaystyle x = {{r + {\phi}_1} \over MAU}$ $\displaystyle x_1 = {{r_1 + {\phi}_1} \over MAU}\,,\,\, x_2 = {{r_2 + {\phi}_1} \over MAU}$ $\displaystyle A = {v_r}_{avg} * {\pi \over 2} * {1 \over MAU}$ $\displaystyle u = {{x - 0.63} \over {0.69 - 0.63}} 2\pi$ $\displaystyle u_1 = {{x_1 - 0.63} \over {0.69 - 0.63}} 2\pi\,,\,\, u_2 = {{x_2 - 0.63} \over {0.69 - 0.63}} 2\pi$ $\displaystyle du = {2\pi \over {0.69 - 0.63}} dx$ one gets the simplified equation for time t: $\displaystyle t = {1 \over A} \int\limits_{u_1}^{u_2} {1 \over \sin{\left(u\right)}} {{0.69 - 0.63} \over 2\pi} du $ $\displaystyle t = {1 \over A} {0.06 \over 2\pi} \left( \ln{\lvert\tan{u_2 \over 2}\rvert} - \ln{\lvert\tan{u_1 \over 2}\rvert} \right)$ giving the solution: $\displaystyle t = t_{img} = 3166701318.5\, img\, years = 3.1667013185 * 10^9\, y_i$ r₁ = 0.656370656370 MAU
r₂ = 0.66 MAU
MAU = 227.92 * 10⁹ m
ϕ₁ = 0.00025 MAU This is because the above equations are not time dependent (dv/dt = 0), they are only space dependent (dv/dr <> 0). However, one must take into account the compression of time at the end of the cycle (this is obvious from another angle - if the cycle is 4.25 Gy long and ≈4.25 Gy has already passed, the time left must be much shorter, note also that the phase shift is required - ϕ₁ of 0 gives infinity for t), when the quantum of time Δt will decrease in scale. With the compression, v_r in the same reference frame will be effectively increasing. As I have previously calculated (see The Solar System: Nature and Mechanics), for the 4.25 (4.54 unadjusted) Gy cycle, the compression of time is: $\displaystyle \nabla t_{c_u} = \Delta t_{c_u} {y_i \over y^2}= 69573495.04\, {y_i \over y}$ How much [real] time is left one can now obtain simply by the following equation: $\displaystyle t = t_{re} = {t_{img} \over {\nabla t_{c_u}}} = 46\, years$ Giving the following year for the end of the cycle (assuming Earth was at distance r₁ in year 2020): $\displaystyle t_{\scriptscriptstyle{END}} = 2020 + 46 = 2066$

Note that, in any case, one could not attribute species like Carcharodon Carcharias to these arrivals of homo.β if they have occurred, but one cannot rule out more recent visitors (eg. Mars.homo.sapiens) indulging into the realization of such fun hypothesis.
Recent analyses of Martian meteorites suggest Mars' crust is much younger than previously thought, less than 200 million years. Even more recent research has yielded evidence for even more recent geological activity (youngest, ≈50 000 years ago) showing that Mars is still volcanically active. Of course, embryonic neurogenesis on Mars likely ended some 850 million years after its formation, but this could be interpreted as evidence of hypothesized shorter adult neurogenesis events. I believe, however, that during the recent activity (50 000 years ago) Mars was not habitable (not even partially), it was rather a precursor of upcoming events and increasing habitability (as habitability on Earth decreases, on Mars it should be increasing, at least partially).
If Carcharias was brought from Mars, it may have been brought from mantle layers, not surface. This may be plausible - CSF fluids in the mantle are oceans which are, during neurogenesis, at times replenished with surface water. Note that this also implies that Megalodon might still be living in an ocean within the mantle of Earth. However, these animals cannot be exactly the same, they must have some specific adaptations due to a difference in pH between (current) surface and mantle oceans (I assume the pressure/temperature in the living cells and oceans of the mantle is maintained similar to current conditions on the surface, pH being the main difference). Note that introduction of alien species to Earth does not imply physical transfer of developed bodies, in general, this is likely the transfer of genetic material. Homo.sapiens should even be advanced enough to be able to synthesize DNA so the transfer may not be limited to extant species.

Note that I do not suggest taking signals as overly confident evidence, but due to experience I cannot always discard them as some coincidence in background noise. And I will not not talk about them just because I might be labelled insane or I might lose some points somewhere. I have transcended beyond the formal normalcy and that I will never regret. The signals, to some, might be hidden in this background noise (they were to me for most of my current life) and since they cannot be filtered out from it by brute force it is reasonable they are not part of any conventional scientific method. And they shouldn't be, as long as this sense of synchronization does not become a common feature of evolving species in such way that most can verify it with a significant level of certainty. But I find it wrong to stigmatize and deny diversity in evolutionary rates - in truth, we are all different species. For that matter, a general consensus should never be a denial of unverifiable without questioning one's own inadequacy as a verifier. To me, the signals are clear and this is what I can say about it:

• there are some extraordinary experiences, phaenomena of synchronicity, occurring in life of those who reach a certain level of intimacy with the universe they live in,
• these phaenomena can be extremely helpful as they are a form of guidance to problem solutions,
• they cannot be forced to appear and will never appear when explicitly searched for,
• past experiences will often be recognized as a signal in future, but they were meant to be discovered in future (they have no meaning for the moment of past occurrence),
• the frequency of signals should increase with decreasing distance to the event of synchronization of past and future (scales) when they should occur more often as events of synchronicity and more people should begin noticing them (although, probably limited to neutralum descendants).

Since the signals are not experienced, or at least not interpreted, by everyone, they may be interpreted as evidence that natural selection of the local universe is using determinism of natural mechanics as predictive power in preparation of environment for selected individuals. Another interpretation - entanglement between two universes of the same species (and same individuals) but different scale (time flows faster in smaller one), such that entanglement in space provides an illusion of entanglement in time. But what is the purpose of such entanglement? Self-preservation through symbiosis. Smaller universe is making memories for a bigger to live through, bigger one provides storage space and thus enables change (evolution) for the smaller universe. But roles are relative, they both are actually living and sharing memories, as they are also connected with other bigger and smaller universes in chains of vertical and horizontal action and reaction potentials.

If the conclusion was indeed based on assumption, this would be another example of bad science. If sample analysis does not agree with commonly accepted hypothesis, one should not assume or, even worse, claim that the sample is bad, one should explore the possibility that it is good and call for more testing. Otherwise, one is not the explorer, but a preacher. What is the point of good methodology and expertise if one is going to do cherry-picking afterwards. That is not science, that is politics. Politics and churches, apart from being a waste of resources of many to suit the needs of few to play gods, are the worst enemies of truth. Sadly, apparently they are present everywhere in human species, corrupting everything, even science.

There are two major forces affecting the African plate and the Pyramids - spreading of the sea floor from the Mid-Atlantic Ridge and Central Indian Ridge (CIR). The CIR is younger (interestingly, it opened some 38 Mya, corresponding to Mid-Late Eocene extinction) and spreading a bit faster. One interesting interpretation for the appearance of CIR would thus be the stabilization of the African plate.

All generally weakly evolving processes should accelerate during strong evolution. I have previously concluded that anthropogenic CO₂ will not be sufficient to increase acidity of oceans in order to reach the required pH level for neurogenesis. Thus, one can expect significant increase in activity at mid-oceanic ridges. This will accelerate the movement of plates.

What about uncertainty? The most questionable parameter here is the choice of the initial year. It should probably be less than 1997, however, change in the initial year causes only ≈ 1/4 - 1/3 of that change in the outcome. In example, choosing year 1990 for the initial year gives year 2066 (only 2 years difference).