PDA

View Full Version : Help needed with some whacky astronomy



Teez
2002-Jan-08, 07:09 PM
Found this posted on a gaming forum (http://forums.raven-games.com/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=14&t=004129) (!!!) I frequent and thought you guys might be able to help me debunk it.

While I don't know much about astronomy beyond the layman stuff, I do know that the Earth's magnetic field fluctuates over time. I assume the same holds true for other planets and stars. Similarly, the reference to "natrium" below sets my bull**** detector in the red, but I'm too ignorant to be 100% certain. Likewise "conscious energy" and similar nonsense is obviously laughable but stuff like "glowing plasma" I'm not sure about.

Any help would be greatly appreciated. TIA.

Hi Folks,
Here is an Update ... do enjoy the read and fasten you seat belts for the roller coaster ride into the Golden Age of Unconditional Love, Peace and prosperity of all life forms living in overwelming abundence and Joy

_____WOOO HOOO!!! _____ Bring it on ____I Love IT!!!

This is the Russian perspective on earth changes. Hard facts that are going unreported in America. The atmospheres of the planets are changing. Dr. Dmitriev's work shows that the planets themselves are changing. They are undergoing changes in their atmospheres.

For example the Martian atmosphere is getting sizably thicker than it was before. The Mars observer probe in 1997 lost one of its mirrors, which caused it to crash, because the atmosphere was about twice as dense as they calculated, and basically the wind on that little mirror was so high that it blew it right off the device.

Earth's moon is growing an atmosphere

Also, the moon is growing an atmosphere that's made up of a compound Dmitriev refers to as ''Natrium.'' Dmitriev says that, around the moon, there is this 6,000-kilometer-deep layer of Natrium that wasn't there before.

And we're having this kind of change in Earth's atmosphere in the upper levels, where HO gas is forming that wasn't there before; it simply did not exist in the quantity that it does now. It's not related to global warming and it's not related to CFCs or fluorocarbon emissions or any of that stuff. It's just showing up.

Magnetic fields and brightness of the planets are changing. The planets are experiencing sizable changes in their overall brightness. Venus, for example, is showing us marked increases in its overall brightness. Jupiter has gotten to have such a high energetic charge that there is actually a visible tube of ionizing radiation that's formed between its moon, Io. You can actually see the luminous energy tube in photographs that have been taken more recently..

And the planets are having a change in their fields. The magnetic fields are becoming stronger. Jupiter's magnetic field has more than doubled. Uranus's magnetic field is changing. Neptune's magnetic field is increasing. These planets are becoming brighter. Their magnetic field strength is getting higher. Their atmospheric qualities are changing.

Uranus and Neptune appear to have had recent pole shifts. When the Voyager 2 space probe flew past Uranus and Neptune, the apparent north and south magnetic poles were sizably offset from where the rotational pole was. In one case, it was 50 degrees off, and in the other case the difference was around 40 degrees, both of which are pretty big changes.

The overall changes could essentially be broken down into three categories: Energy field changes, luminosity changes, and atmospheric changes.

Overall volcanic activity has increased 500 percent since 1975 On the Earth, we're seeing the changes even more completely.

For example, Michael Mandeville has done research that has shown that the overall volcanic activity on the Earth since 1875 has increased by roughly 500 percent. The overall earthquake activity has increased by 400 percent just since 1973.

Natural disasters increased 410 percent between 1963 and 1993

Dr. Dmitriev did a very elaborate calculation of natural disasters. He showed that if you compare the years 1963 through 1993, the overall amount of natural disasters of all different kinds - whether you are talking hurricanes, typhoons, mud slides, tidal waves, you name it - have increased by 410 percent.

The Sun's magnetic field increased by 230 percent since 1901

There's a study by Dr. Mike Lockwood from Rutherford Appleton National Laboratories in California, who has been investigating the Sun. He has discovered that since 1901, the overall magnetic field of the Sun has become 230 percent stronger than it was before.

More than just Earth Changes

So, all in all, what we're seeing is a lot more than just what they call Earth Changes. Some people get into the idea that there is an interaction between the Earth and the Sun that's going on here. Very, very few people are aware of the work that is being done in the Russian National Academy of Sciences in Siberia, specifically in Novosibirsk, where they are doing this research. They've come to the conclusion that the only possible thing that could be causing this energetic change all throughout the Solar System is that we are moving into an area of energy that is different - that is higher.

The glowing plasma at the leading edge of our Solar System has recently increased 1000 percent

Now, check this out. The Sun itself has a magnetic field, of course, and that magnetic field creates an egg around the Solar System, which is known as the heliosphere. The heliosphere is shaped like a teardrop, with the long and thin end of the drop pointing in the opposite direction from the direction that we're traveling. It's just like a comet, where the tail is always pointing away from the Sun.

The Russians have looked at the leading edge of this heliosphere, and they have observed glowing, excited plasma energy there. This plasma energy used to be 10 astronomical units deep (an astronomical unit is the distance from the Earth to the Sun, 93,000,000 miles). So ten astronomical units represents the normal thickness of this glowing energy that we used to see at the front end of the Solar System.

Today, that glowing plasma has gone to 100 astronomical units deep. Although Dmitriev's paper does not give an exact timeline, we can assume that this increase happened in the same 1963 to 1993 period as the increase he found in natural disasters. Whenever it happened, that's a 1,000 percent increase in the overall brightness of the energy at the front end of the Solar System.

And this means that the Solar System itself is moving into an area where the energy is more highly charged. That higher-charged energy is in turn exciting the plasma and causing more of it to form, so you see more luminosity, more brightness. This energy is then flowing into the Sun, which in turn emits the energy and spreads it out along its equatorial plane, which is called the Ecliptic.

This in turn is saturating interplanetary space, which causes the solar emissions to travel more quickly and charge up the energy on the planets.

And this is conscious energy that is changing how the planet works, how it functions, and what kind of life it supports. The harmonics of the DNA spiral itself are altering. That's the real, hidden cause of spontaneous mass evolutions in previous epochs of time.

All this is happening all at the same time, and it's all working up to a crescendo where there is going to be a sudden shift.

In other words, we will get to the point where we are so far into the new level of energy that there will be a sudden expansion of the basic harmonic wavelengths that the Sun emits as it radiates energy out of itself. This increase in energy emission will change the basic nature of all matter in the Solar System. The planets are pushed slightly farther away from the Sun and the atoms and molecules that make them up actually expand in terms of their physical size.

http://dolfijn.ilse.nl/

Valiant Dancer
2002-Jan-08, 07:41 PM
On 2002-01-08 14:09, Teez wrote:
Found this posted on a gaming forum (http://forums.raven-games.com/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=14&t=004129) (!!!) I frequent and thought you guys might be able to help me debunk it.



Your ** detector was right to go off. I have found no mention of glowing plasma surrounding the solar system stretching out 100 AU. I was not aware of a device that measured the strength of the sun's magnetic field in 1901. Natrium is another word for sodium.

here is a link to this unbelieveable tripe.

http://www.crawford2000.co.uk/wilcock.htm

It's a site on global consciousness and other newage (not new age) drek. The stuff reads like a drug trip gone bad. Plasma and Natrium are not thought of a physical means, rather a consciousness means. The means of detection of the data stated is most probably "remote sensing". The idea that if you think about a place and "reach out" you can accurately determine the chemical composition and "see" phenomenon "otherwise unseeable by the eye of man." The Amazing Randi would have a field day with these guys. Newage (pronounced the same as sewage with a lot of other similarities) philosiphy being passed off as science.

Gee, and I'm a Wiccan, too. Everyone I know in the Covenant of the Goddess would laugh these guys off any speaking stage.

ToSeek
2002-Jan-08, 07:52 PM
Let's just take a few shots here:



For example the Martian atmosphere is getting sizably thicker than it was before. The Mars observer probe in 1997 lost one of its mirrors, which caused it to crash, because the atmosphere was about twice as dense as they calculated, and basically the wind on that little mirror was so high that it blew it right off the device.


This is a total fantasy, plus if the Martian atmosphere were getting thicker, the Mars Odyssey mission, currently undergoing aerobraking, would certainly be affected.



Also, the moon is growing an atmosphere that's made up of a compound Dmitriev refers to as ''Natrium.'' Dmitriev says that, around the moon, there is this 6,000-kilometer-deep layer of Natrium that wasn't there before.


Um, the Moon's diameter is only about 3500 km, so that's a heck of an atmosphere. As for natrium, that's just another name for sodium, which doesn't become gaseous until about 550 degrees Celsius - that's one hot atmosphere, too!



And we're having this kind of change in Earth's atmosphere in the upper levels, where HO gas is forming that wasn't there before; it simply did not exist in the quantity that it does now. It's not related to global warming and it's not related to CFCs or fluorocarbon emissions or any of that stuff. It's just showing up.

HO would be a very unstable ion - it would grab another hydrogen atom (or something) and become water.

Not much point in commenting further.

David Simmons
2002-Jan-09, 02:22 AM
On 2002-01-08 14:52, ToSeek wrote:
Let's just take a few shots here:



For example the Martian atmosphere is getting sizably thicker than it was before. The Mars observer probe in 1997 lost one of its mirrors, which caused it to crash, because the atmosphere was about twice as dense as they calculated, and basically the wind on that little mirror was so high that it blew it right off the device.


This is a total fantasy, plus if the Martian atmosphere were getting thicker, the Mars Odyssey mission, currently undergoing aerobraking, would certainly be affected.



The Odyssey aerobraking went just about as predicted. Odyssey braking (http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/space/12/28/mars.probe.ap/index.html)

And, of course, the space station's orbit would be affected if the atmosphere of the earth grew by very much.

ToSeek
2002-Jan-09, 02:04 PM
On 2002-01-08 21:22, David Simmons wrote:
The Odyssey aerobraking went just about as predicted. Odyssey braking (http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/space/12/28/mars.probe.ap/index.html)


(Enterprise Mission message board mode)
Yeah, well, that's what they're telling us. You don't really believe NASA, do you? I mean, we all know that Mars Observer and all those "other" failed missions are still there, secretly sending information back that they don't want us to know about. And that's in addition to the secret hi-res color photos MGS has been sending back.
(/Enterprise Mission message board mode)
/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

CJSF
2002-Jan-09, 02:20 PM
The means of detection of the data stated is most probably "remote sensing". The idea that if you think about a place and "reach out" you can accurately determine the chemical composition and "see" phenomenon "otherwise unseeable by the eye of man."


Um, you mean "remote VIEWING"... remote sensing...

http://www.geo.mtu.edu/rs/
http://wwwedu.ssc.nasa.gov/ltp/default.htm
http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/starthere.html


...is the field I am in, and I can tell you it is DEFINITELY not New Age.

CJSF

Valiant Dancer
2002-Jan-09, 02:38 PM
On 2002-01-09 09:20, Christopher Ferro wrote:


The means of detection of the data stated is most probably "remote sensing". The idea that if you think about a place and "reach out" you can accurately determine the chemical composition and "see" phenomenon "otherwise unseeable by the eye of man."


Um, you mean "remote VIEWING"... remote sensing...

http://www.geo.mtu.edu/rs/
http://wwwedu.ssc.nasa.gov/ltp/default.htm
http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/starthere.html


...is the field I am in, and I can tell you it is DEFINITELY not New Age.

CJSF



Nope, sensing. Viewing is what can be seen, not the chemical composition of atmospheres. We're talking about meditation, not scientific instruments. The term "New Age" refers to a philosiphy. And some religions can be called new age.

Ooooooooo. These charlatians make me so mad.

CJSF
2002-Jan-09, 04:02 PM
I still think calling it remote sensing is at best, confusing (and at worst just wrong).

Remote Sensing is an established field of scientific research and analysis (and even commercial production of imagery). Remote sensing sensor platforms exist on many LEO satellites (Landsat, GOES, SPOT etc.) and on planetary probes (like Mars Global Surveyor, Galileo, Cassini, etc.).

Remote Sensing encompasses aerial photography and even in a looser sense the telescopic data. It is obvervation without direct contact (even sonar and radar are remote sensing) - so I suppose that is at least in common with this ridiculousness.

I guess it is my obligation as a Remote Sensing Specialist to bristle. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_cool.gif

CJSF

Valiant Dancer
2002-Jan-09, 04:14 PM
On 2002-01-09 11:02, Christopher Ferro wrote:
I still think calling it remote sensing is at best, confusing (and at worst just wrong).

Remote Sensing is an established field of scientific research and analysis (and even commercial production of imagery). Remote sensing sensor platforms exist on many LEO satellites (Landsat, GOES, SPOT etc.) and on planetary probes (like Mars Global Surveyor, Galileo, Cassini, etc.).

Remote Sensing encompasses aerial photography and even in a looser sense the telescopic data. It is obvervation without direct contact (even sonar and radar are remote sensing) - so I suppose that is at least in common with this ridiculousness.

I guess it is my obligation as a Remote Sensing Specialist to bristle. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_cool.gif

CJSF



Granted that the field of scientific remote sensing is a proven and valid science, the Newage philosiphy also uses this term. (They also use the term "rational" equally absurdly.) Perhaps the term "meditational remote sensing" would calm the apprehension you have about these yo-yos. (sounds better than "acid trip".)

I have to keep up on these clowns, I may be accused of believing the tripe they try to pass off as "science" or "truth".