Ice Age - EU practical experiment thought

[yahyamsy]

I've just finished watching on youtube a 10-part series called "Ice Age in 30 years" by Rolf Witzsche. In summary, it argues for the electric nature of the sun with focus on the "Primer fields" theory by David Lepoint. The conclusion being that the externally supplied Primer Fields from the galaxy that power our sun, could drop significantly in intensity over the next 30 years, and thereby turns the sun OFF initiating a new 'Ice Age', one we are due for based on historical trends observed in ice core analysis.

This would be another take on EU needing hard evidence to be considered by the establishment. I couldn't help but think of an idea to test this, which I propose here and seek readers feedback.

An externally powered electric sun model is based on the idea that streams of plasma coming from the middle of our galaxy are drawn in and focused by the sun's strong magnetic fields to a highly concentrated pinch that results in the solar glow we see. If true, then the same dynamic should be the principle by which all the 100 billion other stars around us in the same galaxy - affected by the same Primer Fields.

Now, if that is the case, then one can imagine that the intensity of such dynamic for each star would be based on two factors; 1) its distance of the from the center of the galaxy - corresponding to the strength of field received, and 2) the mass of the star corresponding to its gravity and magnetic field. The product of the two would give a value - let's call it PV (Plasma Value) which we can set as 1 for our sun. If we now look at ALL the stars in the milkyway galaxy, we should be able to give each a PV value from its location and mass, and order them from least to highest, with our sun somewhere in the middle.

The fluctuating Primer Field coming from the galaxy's center (being currently on a diminishing trend) should have a visible effect of having start with the lowest PV numbers hitting their cutoff levels sooner and losing their glow state (turn off). i.e. if our sun was being observed from another part of the galaxy, there should be a distinct and marked difference in appearance/glow between its glow state (as now) and its turned-off state as in an ice age period.

Therefore, looking at past high resolution images of the various regions of the milkyway, one should be able to see by now starts with low PV turned off already. If so, then this would not only proof the entire EU concept, but would also provide a way to reasonably predict when our own sun might hit its cutoff point and turn off. With that information, global agenda can then be shifted from focus on global warming to global cooling and means to prepare for it.

[comingfrom]

Hi Yahyamsy.

1) I don't think we can presume diminished current or primer fields with distance from the center of the galaxy.
If that were the case, all galaxies would have noticeably brighter stars in the center.

2) Mass has little bearing on the strength of primer fields, since magnetic fields are generated by currents.

Luminosity and mass distributions are not so clear cut.
Electricity works in circuits, and the power in the circuit is the same throughout the circuit.

I think it is highly unlikely that our Sun will "turn off", but it is a variable star.
A slight variation might be enough to trigger an ice age.
~Paul

[pavlink]

Hi Yahyamsy,

There is evidences that the individual stars power fluctuate periodically.

Why and how it will affect the star check the double star theory and model here.
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=14488#p85724

[comingfrom]

By far the best explanation for the cause of the ice ages that I have come across.

How the Charge Field causes the Ice Ages by Miles Mathis.

~Paul

[Webbman]

I agree in principle with Mr. Mathis.

the sun changes its behavior in relation to the behavior of the galaxy. Its position matters.

interesting paper. Thanks.

[moses]

What Miles is saying is that Jupiter has a big effect with regard to the ice ages. Well this ties in with the theory that the ice ages were caused by Earth being in a very elliptical orbit. Big things happen when Earth is aligned with Jupiter when Earth is the furthest from the Sun.

Cheers,
Mo

[Webbman]

What Miles is saying is that Jupiter has a big effect with regard to the ice ages. Well this ties in with the theory that the ice ages were caused by Earth being in a very elliptical orbit. Big things happen when Earth is aligned with Jupiter when Earth is the furthest from the Sun.

Cheers,
Mo

that's the part I didn't really agree with since the timelines are far too long. These are galactic level events, not local ones. Any effect Jupiter would have would be minor and short term. Certainly not 10000 plus cycles at a time.

[allynh]

Sorry for coming in late to this discussion. I've posted this before, but there is a simpler cause for an Ice Age that does not involve external changes.

- You can have an Ice Age because the Earth warms up.

They knew in 1958 what was happening, but consensus shut them down because of the implications. They didn't know how to stop what was happening, so ignored the findings. HA!

Essentially, when the Arctic Ice goes away, the evaporation from the Arctic Ocean causes massive snowfall in the North and massive rainfall in the Middle Latitudes. The combination of snow covering the Northern Latitudes and the clouds covering most of the Northern Hemisphere reduce global temperatures until the Arctic Ice reforms and stops the evaporation from the Arctic Ocean. This has happened at least twice before, ten thousand and six thousand years ago, based on recent findings.

Look at the past ten years of cities shut down from snowfall, and massive flooding, based on the current cool dry conditions. With the Arctic Ice still in place.

- All it takes is one bad year of snowfall and rainfall with cities buried in snow or dealing with flooding to cause megadeaths.

The problem is, that it will take more than one bad year before the Arctic Ice is restored, and that's the end of us. It won't be an extinction level event, but most of the civilized world will not survive. I know that seems like an extreme statement, but consider: The people in the North were living in caves while Egypt and India were building civilizations. All that is due to the extremes created by the Arctic Ocean being clear for brief periods of time over the past ten thousand years. The past five thousand years of cool dry conditions have allowed the North to develop, and turn the Cradle of Civilization into a desert. But I digress.

We can deal with a modest cooling, but we can't deal with an ice free Arctic Ocean. That's why it is vital to understand geoengineering to keep the Arctic Ocean from being free of ice. Something as simple as a hose held up by balloons spraying sulfur into the upper atmosphere, like when a volcano erupts, can make all the difference.

Articles to read, videos to watch:

The Coming Ice Age
http://harpers.org/archive/1958/09/the-coming-ice-age/

They mention the Sahara desert in the article, saying in 1958 that:

And, finally, human witnesses were tracked down in southern deserts. During this past year archaeologists have brought back new evidence that the Sahara desert was green and fertile and thriving with civilization when glaciers froze life in America and Europe. Ewing and Donn had deduced that an open Arctic Ocean would have caused rain in today’s deserts. Now, from the caves of the Sahara, came ancient man’s vivid drawings of the animals that he hunted on the once grassy desert.

Recently, National Geographic found that ten thousand and six thousand years ago the Sahara was wet. That indicates at least two times when the Arctic Ice was gone and ice ruled the North.

Lost Tribes of the Green Sahara
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/ ... -text.html

There has been at least one TPOD that has discussed the implications of the Green Sahara.

The Amazon Rainforest
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/1 ... ainforest/

These are the interviews about the proposed fix to keep the Arctic Ice in place. Simple engineering.

CNN & Former Microsoft Head Talk Of Geo Engineering The Planet Part 1 OF 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5e5mxVfDBbY

CNN & Former Microsoft Head Talk Of Geo Engineering The Planet Part 2 OF 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCyOGLWM0mA

[GaryN]

Interesting to note how these past ice ages were determined, and from what I can see, it is all based on assumptions, and the geological evidence they see could be all nonsense if the evidence such as glacial scarring, sediments, river bed erosion,and millions of years of course, was instead all done in short order by extreme electrical storms. Real science can't be based on assumptions.

[moses]

<that's the part I didn't really agree with since the timelines are far too long. These are galactic level events, not local ones. Any effect Jupiter would have would be minor and short term. Certainly not 10000 plus cycles at a time. Webbman>

If conditions 5000+ years ago were very electrical then the isotope numbers would be formed from that high electricity, and hence have nothing to do with time. So even that 10,000BC date has got to be doubtful. So if one examines the evidence without a timeline other that older sediments are deeper then one comes up with some very different possibilities.

Yes heating is required to form an ice age. Lots of snow and rain. If the Earth travelled much nearer to the Sun then we get the heating and it would still be cold enough at the poles to produce snow. And simply the orbit produces the regular variations seen. And Jupiter could easily cause issues near conjunction with Earth.

Cheers,
Mo

[comingfrom]

Thank you, Webbman.

that's the part I didn't really agree with since the timelines are far too long. These are galactic level events, not local ones. Any effect Jupiter would have would be minor and short term. Certainly not 10000 plus cycles at a time.

In that paper Mathis said Jupiter's precession of inclination is 50,000 years.

I just googled to see if I could confirm.

It was established that a perturbing torque causes the precession and simultaneous rotation of the orbital planes of Jupiter and Saturn. Moreover, the opposite orbit nodes on the Laplace plane coincide and perform a secular movement in retrograde direction with the same velocity of 25.6″/yr and the period TJ = TS ≈ 50687 yr.

src: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S0038094614040066

~~~~
Gary

Interesting to note how these past ice ages were determined

From ice core samples.
When they were done in the Antartica, they confirmed the ones done at the north pole.

But I understand your skepticism. I also wonder how they can be so confident about things so far back in time.

~~~
Allynh

- You can have an Ice Age because the Earth warms up.

The Earth has to warm up to come out of an Ice Age.

~Paul

[GaryN]

From ice core samples.

https://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004 ... e-core.htm
Another assumption by the 'experts'. And that can only take them back to the last supposed interglacial. The lost aircraft aircraft cast even those dates into doubt.
The Lost Squadron.
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=5769&start=210#p99729

[perpetual motion]

I know as of last winter that I would not believe in their ice core samples. You can believe this or
not is that we received, in one and a half days, a whopping 13" of snow. Inside of this snow depth there
were eight layers each of snow, that was the first time that I ever went out after a storm and
counted the layers. Eight different layers in a day and a half. In my opinion their core samples
are not proving much about the ages. Oh, and this snow fell in semi arid Montana. Then these
snow falls around great bodies of water would be humungous. Freeze thaw, freeze thaw, freeze
thaw but with no evaporation. No one would be able to even guess at to the age of these, because
each time that it snows it would be completely different ball game. Daily, monthly, your guess
is as good as mine.

[moses]

How much energy is required to turn water into all the polar ice? So all the ice would have been evaporated ocean water. 540 calories per gram. 334 kJ/kg for ice to water. [ 1 calorie = 4.184 joules ] 2259 joules/gm = 2259 kj/kg

So Antartic ice of 26 million cubic km would take how many kJ to form.
[1 litre = 1kg = 1000ccm, 100x100x100 kg in a cubic km so 26 x 1000000 x 1000000 kg in Antarctica. So 26 x 1000000000 tons. thus about 2000 kj x 26 x 1000000000000, thus 52 x 10 ^ 15 kJ]

Now we want incoming radiation from the Sun at a certain distance converted into heating ocean water. Say half the distance to the Sun for 100 days gives:
100 x 3 x 173 x 10^12 x 60 x 60 x 24 joules in 100 days = 45 x 10^20 joules = 45 x 10^17 kJ

Thus there is about 100 times as much energy available needed to form the Antarctic ice in just 100 days. So there can be no doubt that the Earth in a much more elliptical orbit could have formed the Antarctic ice.

Cheers,
Mo

[comingfrom]

Thank you Moses.

An elliptical orbit effects a yearly cycle.
The ice ages (if the dating is correct) is more like an 100,000 year cycle.
~Paul