Petroglyphs, Plasma phenomena and the Norway event.

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 03:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Xenus
 


I think you will find that it is you, Astyanax, who do not have any real understanding in cosmology. NASA and all the other space agencies worldwide know, anyone working with nuclear explosions knows, anyone who has ever seen plasma and seen images of galaxies and nebulae, know.

Hello there, Xenus.

What do they know? That plasmas are produced as a result of various high-energy events? Every scientifically literate person knows that. Wherever gas molecules are ionized by the impact of high-energy particles or electric fields, there you will find plasma--for example, as I mentioned earlier, in a 'neon' light.

That is not to say, as electric-universe and plasma-cosmology proponents would have it, that the majority of cosmological events are plasmas or are caused by the actions of plasmas. And it certainly doesn't mean that the standard model of cosmology, based on general relativity, is untrue or even called into question.

I will leave judgements about my understanding of cosmology to others. But did you read my response to nunya13 concerning what plasma is, and what is being claimed by those of your persuasion? Was any of it in error? If so, could you be so kind as to point out what those errors were?

A word of caution before you start. In your eagerness to provide credence for plasma cosmology, you may already have killed your own thread by swamping it with irrelevant information. I thought this thread was about the relationship between petroglyphs, plasma phenomena and the 'Norway event'. That is an interesting subject, one that is likely to fascinate many ATS members and generate a lively discussion. Arguing the bona fides of plasma cosmology is not.

I, for one, am certainly not interested in doing so. If you think plasma cosmology is credible, believe in it by all means. When it has made a few testable predictions and becomes a serious contender for mainstream acceptance, I will most certainly consider it. Until then, I have no time for it; the standard relativistic approach to cosmology suits me just fine.

[edit on 14/12/09 by Astyanax]




posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 09:47 AM
link   
Science and beliefs do not mix, take away the beliefs and you have truth, reality, mix in beliefs and you will never find "reality" as it really is, but as how you believe it is. I don't need to "believe" anything, in fact I don't. You are the one who is doing the believing.

Anyone who is clearly not insane, not lying to themselves or others can see that plasma exists above us in the ionosphere as well as the "radiation" belts, every time you look at the sun, you look at a giant sphere of plasma. And it's connected to the Earth (or vice versa) by ELECTRICAL CURRENT. This is a fact, it has been measured, observed and detected by THEMIS. These are only some of the plasma phenomena found just in our solar system, there are so many others, all backed by observations and data. However like you said this is not about a theory of the universe, because really that is all it can ever be unless you actually go out and observe, measure and collect data on everything in the universe.

V. ROLE OF ELECTRIC CURRENTS IN THE COSMOS
No real magnetic field can exist anywhere without an associated
moving charge (electric current). Conversely, any electric
current will create a magnetic field. The applicable Maxwell
equation
describes this inherent interrelationship.

Maxwell showed that magnetic fields are the inseparable
handmaidens of electric currents and vice versa. This is as
true in the cosmos as it is here on Earth.
Those investigators
who, for whatever reason, have not been exposed to the now
well-known properties of real plasmas and electromagnetic
field theory must refrain from inventing “new” mechanisms in
efforts to support current-free cosmic models. “New science”
should not be invoked until all of what is now known about
electromagnetic fields and electric currents in space plasma
has been considered. Pronouncements that are in contradiction
to Maxwell’s equations ought to be openly challenged by
responsible scientists and engineers.
members.cox.net...

The information I provided was merely some evidence and proof of the mounting evidence for a PLASMA COSMOLOGY.

(PhysOrg.com) -- Earth-bound tornadoes are puny compared to "space tornadoes," which span a volume as large as Earth and produce electrical currents exceeding 100,000 amperes, according to new observations by a suite of five NASA space probes.

The probe cluster, called Time History of Events and Macroscale Interactions during Substorms (THEMIS), recorded the extent and power of these electrical funnels as the probes passed through them during their orbit of Earth. Ground measurements showed that the space tornadoes channel the electrical current into the ionosphere to spark bright and colorful auroras on Earth.
www.physorg.com...


These are all things we have (re)discovered in the 20th century, with many of the breaking discoveries within the last few years which all confirm PLASMA IN SPACE. So how did all the ancient civilizations, who built monoliths and left rock carvings around the world showing PLASMA phenomena and instabilities, gain that kind of knowledge? They would either had to be as "technologically" advanced as us in order to build nuclear bombs, particle colliders, plasma research facilities and etc or they witnessed something so huge, collosal that it was a major event for humans everywhere.

If you have any issues with anything I post here, perhaps you could go and "debunk" the scientists who did all the hard work in order to gather data and then formed theories based on their observations and then did experiments in order to confirm or deny their ideas. Someone who clings to a theory and tries to make everything they observe and measure fit into that theory is NOT A SCIENTIST. They are a fraud, a liar and would manipulate and lie to get what they want. Once again, science does not need beliefs, they only filter out things.


[edit on 21-12-2009 by Xenus]



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Xenus
 

Oh, dear. You went and did exactly what you shouldn't have.

Look, plasma isn't some magical secret form of energy that scientists won't acknowledge. You're flogging a dead horse there. Every physicist accepts both the existence and the physical import of the fourth state of matter. No need to defend it as though it were some kind of material underdog. It's embarrassing even to have to talk about this--there, there, of course plasma is important.

Enough of that, okay? Let's talk about plasma and petroglyphs. Maybe the thread will recover from the choking you've given it. Tell me, what kind of event do you think might have caused those wondrous glowing squatters in the sky? Some kind of solar thing, or a terrestrial magnetic conniption, or something entirely different?

Methinks I scry Velikovsky, like Leviathan, rising from the depths.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax

Here, take a look at this: Image search results for 'petroglyph'.

As you'll see if you look through those results, petroglyphs come in a very wide variety of shapes. It is true that a few of these do resemble plasma discharges, but most don't. Even the ubiquitous 'squatter man' glyph, the one Peratt and company liken to a 'Z-pinch discharge' in the OP link, appears more often than not in a form that makes it much clearer that the intended representation is not of some great glowing shape in the sky but simply a man with exaggeratedly large genitals.

I'm not saying our ancient ancestors didn't see some crazy, catastrophic auroral event in the sky. I don't know enough to say that; maybe they did. And it's certainly fun to visualize all those cavemen staring up in wonder at some great, glowing mystery in the heavens. But there are simpler and more likely explanations for petroglyphs, and we should always consider these first before letting ourselves be seduced by more exotic possibilities.

Now what these guys are saying, basically, is that tens of thousands of years ago, something happened in the sky to cause parts of Earth's atmosphere to become hugely ionized--anything from ten to a hundred times more strongly charged than even the strongest solar wind today can make them. The result, they reckon, was a lot of huge, bright, freaky patterns in the sky--patterns that follow the characteristic shape of strong plasma discharges, such as spirals, and filamentary discharges that can sometimes look a lot like the very common 'squatting man' petroglyph.

So, did it happen? Did our ancestors look up and see strange glowing shapes in the sky (possibly accompanied by sounds, which is possible if the discharges were very energetic)? And did they then, awed and amazed, scratch these shapes on the rocks about them? Well, who knows. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't.

It would help if there was some unrelated evidence for such an atmospheric phenomenon, or for the solar or other event that might have caused it. As far as I know, there isn't, so this is all speculation. Enjoyable, aesthetically inspiring, exciting speculation--but speculation all the same.


How did you go over the character limit? My quote wouldn't even fit the whole quote in. I'm not here pushing this incredible theory that Dr. Perrat came up with and has validated with years of research and work.

This is not MY theory, it is the work of Anthony L. Perrat. Works in the Los Alamos nuclear laboratory. If you had spent a bit more time doing some reading you would see that he has found well over 4 MILLION of these carvings and paintings around mountainous regions and in caves, they all relate to HIGH DENSITY PLASMA phenomena. If you had bothered to read the .pdf and the second part, then you would know this. Do you think I would tell everyone everything I knew straight up? No, I expect people to learn themselves, this is not something I can make you BELIEVE, because this has nothing to do with beliefs but knowledge. The fact that I came across his paper the night before the spiral in Norway was just too coincidental for me to simply dismiss it.

I posted the stuff regarding plasma for people who do not understand what it is and also to show that yes, it is real and all around us. It's only been a few years since anyone in astronomy would even dare say the word in public, most of the "discoveries" we're making are happening right now or have found in the last couple of years.

As for the Velikovsky comment, I don't really know what you're getting at seeing as how I've never read all that stuff about Venus and the ancient people. As for what's coming, use that brain of yours.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by wylee
 


It looks 'perfect' because the missile was out of the atmosphere, or at least in a highly rarefied atmosphere. No wind, very little wind resistance, and the pattern was made by highly energetic particles of leaking and/or burned fuel.

Russia launched the missile there, because that's where Russia launches its submarine-launched weapons (in the White Sea), towards the Pacific. Russia said it would launch a missile, then we all saw something that looks exactly like a failed high-altitude missile (as ICBMs are), and then Russia admitted to launching a missile. No expert has said it wasn't a missile, as they all know their stuff and know a failed missile when they see one. The physics of making a pattern like we saw is fantastically simple - take a pressurised cannister containing fuel, burn some out the back (making the blue plume), and leak some out the side (making the white spiral), and due to the side leak not being directed away from the centre of gravity, spin is induced, creating a spiral pattern which is not affected by the wind, as there isn't any.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 03:14 PM
link   
Also... There is no need to lie.


Originally posted by AstyanaxIt is true that you need a fair amount of physics to understand in detail what's being discussed here, but the source Xenus directed you to is part of a crank site. Don't risk being misinformed;


And then about the same site.


Originally posted by Astyanax
As for plasmascience.net, it is a site maintained by a group of electrical and electronic engineers who are doing their best to promote this alternative approach to astrophysics; however, their ideas have made no headway in physics because (I understand) they involve massive extrapolations of scale, fail to make any testable predictions and do not account for many physical phenomena--unlike the current relativity-based model, which is time-tested and well founded.

[edit on 12/12/09 by Astyanax]


And just wanted to point out that if these events occurred in such frequency or scale at some point of this planet's history, with humans here to observe them, then for thousands of years we don't see a thing, what would be the anomaly? How do we know that high density plasma is not the normal state of our solar system? Why are there literally millions of rock carvings worldwide, scattered around SAFE mountain areas and caves? Is it because only those who survived these events could record them? These events were either very frequent or very massive, Dr. Perrat states in his paper that;

The instability is that associated with an intense current-carrying
column of plasma which undergoes both sausage and helix
deformations. Such a current would be produced if the solar flux
from the Sun were to increase one or two magnitudes or if another
source of plasma were to enter the solar system.

Since we know the solar flux is actually dropping lately, the speeds and density of the solar wind (plasma) have dropped recently, the extreme quietness of the sun contrary to all predictions, the only other possible explanation for an event of that type would be another source of plasma...

[edit on 21-12-2009 by Xenus]



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by wylee
 


It looks 'perfect' because the missile was out of the atmosphere, or at least in a highly rarefied atmosphere. No wind, very little wind resistance, and the pattern was made by highly energetic particles of leaking and/or burned fuel.

Russia launched the missile there, because that's where Russia launches its submarine-launched weapons (in the White Sea), towards the Pacific. Russia said it would launch a missile, then we all saw something that looks exactly like a failed high-altitude missile (as ICBMs are), and then Russia admitted to launching a missile. No expert has said it wasn't a missile, as they all know their stuff and know a failed missile when they see one. The physics of making a pattern like we saw is fantastically simple - take a pressurised cannister containing fuel, burn some out the back (making the blue plume), and leak some out the side (making the white spiral), and due to the side leak not being directed away from the centre of gravity, spin is induced, creating a spiral pattern which is not affected by the wind, as there isn't any.


Are you serious, no one gives a # what your "experts" say. Why don't you go interview your experts, make sure to put some books, no, tons of books, around them so they appear smart. Make them look as if they are thinking, or working hard, this will make them look expertly. If the idiot military didn't classify and hide everything they could do a test fire of this rocket, see how long it takes before we can replicate the exact same result as in Norway. Also, there has not been an official explanation. They use weasel words like "allegedly", "probably" etc, words that allow you to weasel your way out if you get caught out in a lie.

"Russia launched the missile there, because that's where Russia launches its submarine-launched weapons (in the White Sea), towards the Pacific. Russia said it would launch a missile, then we all saw something that looks exactly like a failed high-altitude missile (as ICBMs are), and then Russia admitted to launching a missile. "

Really? Logical fallacy much? Or maybe you're just insane.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Xenus
 


They're experts. If you don't believe what they say, turn off your computer, stop taking your meds, stop eating food, and go live in a cave - as thanks to exports you have all of them. It would be utter hypocrisy for you to thumb your nose at this explanation, and yet benefit from science. Especially as you can't even find anyone of any serious expertise agreeing with you.

It was a Russian missile. Anyone who knows anything about missiles has figured it out.

Just post up your sources that doubt the claim, and we'll put them head-to-head. We'll see how many astronomers and missile experts you have in your corner. Then if you don't want to accept it, we can agree that you don't believe in the scientific method, and draw a line under this.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by davesidious

They're experts. If you don't believe what they say, turn off your computer, stop taking your meds, stop eating food, and go live in a cave - as thanks to exports you have all of them. It would be utter hypocrisy for you to thumb your nose at this explanation, and yet benefit from science. Especially as you can't even find anyone of any serious expertise agreeing with you.


Just post up your sources that doubt the claim, and we'll put them head-to-head. We'll see how many astronomers and missile experts you have in your corner. Then if you don't want to accept it, we can agree that you don't believe in the scientific method, and draw a line under this.


Only idiot sheep listen to experts and take the information in as truth. Obviously you have no interest here, so please leave, you have not even read some of the information contained inside, you only push your silly fairy tale of a rocket.

As for experts, I KNOW what I was told by Dr. Anthony. L. Perrat, and he had no reason to lie to me, he helped me a lot to understand. And you will most likely not find another English speaking plasma physicist who is more "expert" in the field of plasma physics. He was the student of late Hannes Alfvén.

First you have to prove it was an actual "missile", with real evidence. Where are all the test data from the flight? Audio? Visual? Tests are expensive, they don't just not record anything. The scientific method also requires you to test this rocket leak theory until you consistently get EXACTLY THE SAME RESULTS AS WERE SEEN IN NORWAY. This is about the high density plasma events the ancients witness in relation to the Norway spiral. Go back to the trash thread you crawled out from.

You are not here to gain information but hide it and distort it. You have shown your lack of interest on the subject and your only motive is to peddle a silly story that you yourself are simply far too stupid and insane to contrive yourself.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 04:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Xenus
 

Oh, dear. Despite the mounting evidence of obsession in your earlier posts, I continued to hope that you were a reasonable person with whom one could have a sane conversation.

Your reply to davesidious shows clearly that I was mistaken. It presents no evidence against his points nor any reasoned attempt at rebuttal; it's just mad, hysterical raving.

Earlier, I was a bit offended when you called me a liar. I prize my integrity highly, on ATS just as in real life, and people impugn it at their peril. But don't worry, I'm not offended any more. After that last crazy outburst, how can anyone possibly take what you say seriously?

By the way, is there a Church of Peratt at which the faithful worship?



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Xenus
 

Oh, dear. Despite the mounting evidence of obsession in your earlier posts, I continued to hope that you were a reasonable person with whom one could have a sane conversation.

Your reply to davesidious shows clearly that I was mistaken. It presents no evidence against his points nor any reasoned attempt at rebuttal; it's just mad, hysterical raving.

Earlier, I was a bit offended when you called me a liar. I prize my integrity highly, on ATS just as in real life, and people impugn it at their peril. But don't worry, I'm not offended any more. After that last crazy outburst, how can anyone possibly take what you say seriously?

By the way, is there a Church of Peratt at which the faithful worship?


"reasonable person", "sane conversation", "reasoned attempt", " it's just mad, hysterical raving", "crazy outburst".

These all apply to you. Not me. People who are insane do not know it, thus the nature of insanity. You have not disproved a single thing with the work of Anthony L. Perrat. Yet here you are doing the exact same thing you accuse me of doing. Hypocrite. And a liar. You know that it was no rocket, you know that davesidious has no valid points and I debunked his fairy tale explanation with simple reason and rational thought. You are the one raving on and one about nothing. The only insanity is coming from you and davesidious.

Did ancient man also see rocket tests gone wrong? You have no interest in the subject, you have not added anything except an attack on me and the information I provide, you cannot debunk the truth. You can only smear it, hide it and twist it with lies. You can only make people focus on things that do not matter.

The fact is these events happened before and ancient humans SAW them, then carved them into rocks. What did they see that was so spectacular, so amazing, so awe inspiring that caused them to carve them onto rocks, world wide? It is not something that only one group of people did, this was WORLD WIDE. The spiral in Norway was one example.

[edit on 22-12-2009 by Xenus]



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Xenus
 

You are correct; plasma physics is indeed a very well-founded branch of the subject. 'Plasma cosmology', however, is at odds with the current scientific consensus, most vividly so in its hypothesis of star formation, which leaves out the effects of gravity and nuclear fusion.


Examples of the very speculative nature of Alfvén's conclusions include factually inaccurate explanations for star formation using Birkeland currents.

That quote comes from the Wikipedia entry
on plasma cosmology, which offers a good and scientifically literate survey of the subject.

As for plasmascience.net, it is a site maintained by a group of electrical and electronic engineers who are doing their best to promote this alternative approach to astrophysics; however, their ideas have made no headway in physics because (I understand) they involve massive extrapolations of scale, fail to make any testable predictions and do not account for many physical phenomena--unlike the current relativity-based model, which is time-tested and well founded.

[edit on 12/12/09 by Astyanax]




He's full of baloney.

Plasma cosmology is recognized by several professional journals, including the IEEE.

Wiki is top-down controlled by statist scientists and spews all manner of lies and innuendo about plasma cosmologists, just like they prevent skeptical climate scientists from speaking out.

Plasma scientists who attempt to edit wiki are banned and their articles are deleted.

You will not get any accurate information regarding plasma cosmology from wiki.

Look at the IEEE journals, Aperion journals, and these web sites for accurate information.


People should be allowed to make up their own minds about which theory more accurately describes reality.

If you like black holes, big bangs, multiple dimensions, dark matter, dark flows, dark stars, neutronium, and all other manner of fairies and pixie dust, plasma cosmology is not for you.

If you like real theories that are limited by physics that are reproducible in a lab, plasma cosmology is right up your alley.




[edit on 23-12-2009 by mnemeth1]



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 02:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xenus
These all apply to you. Not me.

People who are insane do not know it...

You said a mouthful, buddy.


You know that it was no rocket

I know it was a rocket. Davesidious's points were perfectly valid, but I didn't need him to tell me; the Russians have said it was a rocket, other sources have validated it, and that's quite enough for me.


Did ancient man also see rocket tests gone wrong?

Presumably not. Therefore, and rather obviously, they did not see what modern Norwegians saw in the sky the other day.


You have no interest in the subject.

I am still interested in talking about plasma figures in the sky. I am not interested in futile arguments about a Russian rocket failure.


The fact is these events happened before and ancient humans SAW them, then carved them into rocks. What did they see that was so spectacular, so amazing, so awe inspiring that caused them to carve them onto rocks, world wide? It is not something that only one group of people did, this was WORLD WIDE. The spiral in Norway was one example.

One last attempt at sane, reasoned discourse:

Nobody knows for certain what ancient humans saw in the sky, for the simple reason that no-one alive today was living in ancient times. We can only speculate that ancient humans may have seen this or that. And sure, they may have seen plasma spirals in the sky. Personally, I doubt they did, but I'm not saying they didn't because nobody knows for certain.

What we can say with near certaint is that they did not see what was seen in Norway the other day, because no-one was launching rockets back in the Pleistocene.

Thus, reason. I'm sorry if it conflicts with your faith, but in such cases it is usually tant pis for faith.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 06:44 PM
link   
No, Russia has not admitted anything except that they were testing a rocket. That is all. The link between the test and the spiral is pure speculation on your part and the media's. At least they don't lie, they only say may have been, or could have been etc. Weasel words. But nonetheless, NASA seems to be agreeing with Dr. Perrat and myself.

Be careful what you say about PLASMA




December 23, 2009: The solar system is passing through an interstellar cloud that physics says should not exist. In the Dec. 24th issue of Nature, a team of scientists reveal how NASA's Voyager spacecraft have solved the mystery.

"Using data from Voyager, we have discovered a strong magnetic field just outside the solar system," explains lead author Merav Opher, a NASA Heliophysics Guest Investigator from George Mason University. "This magnetic field holds the interstellar cloud together and solves the long-standing puzzle of how it can exist at all."

Astronomers call the cloud we're running into now the Local Interstellar Cloud or "Local Fluff" for short. It's about 30 light years wide and contains a wispy mixture of hydrogen and helium atoms at a temperature of 6000 C. The existential mystery of the Fluff has to do with its surroundings. About 10 million years ago, a cluster of supernovas exploded nearby, creating a giant bubble of million-degree gas. The Fluff is completely surrounded by this high-pressure supernova exhaust and should be crushed or dispersed by it.


"The observed temperature and density of the local cloud do not provide enough pressure to resist the 'crushing action' of the hot gas around it," says Opher.

So how does the Fluff survive? The Voyagers have found an answer.

"Voyager data show that the Fluff is much more strongly magnetized than anyone had previously suspected—between 4 and 5 microgauss*," says Opher. "This magnetic field can provide the extra pressure required to resist destruction."

NASA's two Voyager probes have been racing out of the solar system for more than 30 years. They are now beyond the orbit of Pluto and on the verge of entering interstellar space—but they are not there yet.

"The Voyagers are not actually inside the Local Fluff," says Opher. "But they are getting close and can sense what the cloud is like as they approach it."

The Fluff is held at bay just beyond the edge of the solar system by the sun's magnetic field, which is inflated by solar wind into a magnetic bubble more than 10 billion km wide. Called the "heliosphere," this bubble acts as a shield that helps protect the inner solar system from galactic cosmic rays and interstellar clouds. The two Voyagers are located in the outermost layer of the heliosphere, or "heliosheath," where the solar wind is slowed by the pressure of interstellar gas.

Voyager 1 entered the heliosheath in Dec. 2004; Voyager 2 followed almost 3 years later in Aug. 2007. These crossings were key to Opher et al's discovery.

The size of the heliosphere is determined by a balance of forces: Solar wind inflates the bubble from the inside while the Local Fluff compresses it from the outside. Voyager's crossings into the heliosheath revealed the approximate size of the heliosphere and, thus, how much pressure the Local Fluff exerts. A portion of that pressure is magnetic and corresponds to the ~5 microgauss Opher's team has reported in Nature.

*snip*

Additional compression could allow more cosmic rays to reach the inner solar system, possibly affecting terrestrial climate and the ability of astronauts to travel safely through space.

*snip*
"There could be interesting times ahead!" says Opher.

science.nasa.gov...



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


I thank you for your honesty and input, I hope you find the information I provide interesting, I did not come up with it, but I did find it the night before the Norway spiral. So to me it was no simple accidental finding. I was searching for things about cosmic rays. Cosmic rays are also plasma, just really low density plasma.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Xenus
 

No.
NASA does not seem to be agreeing.

Here's what you left out of the article. Why? Didn't you think these phrases were pertinent?

Eventually, the solar system will run into some of them, and their strong magnetic fields could compress the heliosphere even more than it is compressed now.



These events would play out on time scales of tens to hundreds of thousands of years, which is how long it takes for the solar system to move from one cloud to the next.


Maybe you can explain how something affecting the heliopause can make a visible spiral on Earth, more than 90 AU away. Was it cosmic rays now? According to you it had something to do with Birkland currents (still not sure how they would form a spiral either).

[edit on 12/23/2009 by Phage]



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Xenus
 

No.
NASA does not seem to be agreeing.

Here's what you left out of the article. Why? Didn't you think these phrases were pertinent?

Eventually, the solar system will run into some of them, and their strong magnetic fields could compress the heliosphere even more than it is compressed now.



These events would play out on time scales of tens to hundreds of thousands of years, which is how long it takes for the solar system to move from one cloud to the next.


Maybe you can explain how something affecting the heliopause can make a visible spiral on Earth, more than 90 AU away. Was it cosmic rays now? According to you it had something to do with Birkland currents (still not sure how they would form a spiral either).

[edit on 12/23/2009 by Phage]


I simply did not have enough characters left, so I put in what I thought was more interesting, I do expect people to go to the links I provide, so thank you, not many people do... I can't explain it, like I said, this theory is from a plasma physicist whom I emailed, I honestly did not expect to hear back, but within 2 hours I had my first reply. He is the one who told me about this high density plasma. I can offer one explanation, my thoughts as to what the cause of the spiral would be perhaps a chunk of this plasma drifted near us and was caught in our magnetic field and like an aurora it appeared in Norway. Remember our magnetic field is #ing huge, millions of KMs. I am still learning about plasma physics, it is very complicated, but it makes sense to me. I am simply sharing this information and hoping to get some decent discussion out of it.

If this happened before and ancient humans saw it, well, we are here are we not? So humans did survive, but what exactly happened when the dense plasma cloud came close to Earth, or Sol or a planet in our solar system? Are Jupiter's red spots related? Comets are also a plasma phenomena, look at the way they emit EM waves, light and x-rays! The way they become fireballs in our atmosphere. They create plasma. UFOs are plasma phenomena, plasma can be caused by rockets and missile, I must admit but usually from NUCLEAR weapons. All nuclear weapons created some kind of high energy plasma phenomena and aurora... As destructive nukes are, they are in a way amazing, just because of all that energy. The nuclear tests were more for experimentation in high energy physics and plasma physics rather than testing the bombs



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 09:35 AM
link   
Characteristics for the Occurrence of a High-Current Z-Pinch Aurora as Recorded in Antiquity - 2


More published papers:

plasmascience.net...

What you are looking at in these papers are bits and pieces of data, where Peratt and others have matched petroglyphs to auroras seen at various angles and dates by various tribes around the world.



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Characteristics for the Occurrence of a High-Current Z-Pinch Aurora as Recorded in Antiquity - 2


More published papers:

plasmascience.net...

What you are looking at in these papers are bits and pieces of data, where Peratt and others have matched petroglyphs to auroras seen at various angles and dates by various tribes around the world.



I'm glad you actually realise that yourself, no one else has come to that conclusion. Despite giving that link out myself and asking people to view it and the information contained in it. This is not just the work of one person, Dr. Perrat's team is made up of over 800 people!





new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join