eschatological prophecy - three days of darkness

[Brigit Bara]

I just find it interesting that in the psychoanalytical view of solar system history, mankind lives in fear because of a repressed collective memory of planetary chaos.

And yet, a clear implication of electricity in space is that close encounters with the planets are not the only source of an electrical catastrophe on earth. Geoeffective solar flares, NEOs, charged objects entering the plane of the ecliptic, and sungrazers are just a few other types of events which may be colorfully commemorated in folk beliefs, or may have shaped the local geography.


Henbury Crater

By attempting to force all mention of all electricity and thunderbolts, and all mention of gods, into a thing caused by planets -- does this not repress or suppress all of the other causes of electrical catastrophe in the past? The extraordinary distortions to dating alone that would result from this approach are breathtaking.

The evidence shows that any near earth object could be the source of a Tunguska-class event. Therefore, attempting to cram all dates, all history, and all folk tales into a planetary disruption is very possibly a kind of repression of the unpleasant or painful idea that there is a laundry list of electrical disasters which may happen at any time.

I feel like I am no fun saying this! But I do believe that we have all seen how a charged body, like the earth or Jupiter or a comet, responds to a differently charged body that gets too close, even if it is quite small in relation.

[nick c]

By attempting to force all mention of all electricity and thunderbolts, and all mention of gods, into a thing caused by planets -- does this not repress or suppress all of the other causes of electrical catastrophe in the past?

I think that the mythic record (especially when it is supported by scientific observations) is the reason that many catastrophists believe that there were close encounters with planets.
An example of that would be numerous ancient references to Venus being a new planet and roaming the skies as world threatening comet. Observations of Venus have shown that it is extremely hot, hotter than Mercury, which is what one would expect if it were new planet; also its rotation is anomalous and maybe slowing down, another phenomenon that may indicate that the planet is new to its present position....

[Brigit Bara]

I think that the mythic record (especially when it is supported by scientific observations) is the reason that many catastrophists believe that there were close encounters with planets.
An example of that would be numerous ancient references to Venus being a new planet and roaming the skies as world threatening comet.

Yes sir. It was one of the greatest surprises of my life to discover that there were other catastrophists and non-Lyellians, and that most of these were inspired by Immanuel Velikovsky. I owe him my gratitude, and I owe Dave Talbott the same for his life's work. The creation of craters on rocky surfaces using electric arcs goes a long way to a real physical explanation for the cratered surfaces and compositions of the moons and planets, as well as the asteroids and meteors. The exchange of electricity between bodies in the solar system provides enough power to excavate the electrical scars we see, leave flat-floored and clean craters and rilles, and to loft the debris into space. The close encounters with planets is supported by scientific observations.

Still, all electric scars on earth and all mention of electricity in the myths does not necessarily refer to the planets.

First, if the planet earth was formed either in a z-pinch in a dusty lane of star formation, or has fissioned from a gas giant, there will be stratification and scarring which made up the planet when it was young. I have waited patiently for a decade and still there is no mention of what the mid-ocean ridges are, and why they are still so electrically active, in the Electric Universe. But because of the height and globe-encircling length of these scars, I think it is best to assume that they are not the result of any planetary encounter -- unless by the parent planet, when there was no life.

[Brigit Bara]

Next, if the planet earth was once a satellite of a brown dwarf, then some of the features of earth's geology will be the result of flaring by the unstable star. Gravity might be less, and life might thrive in a seasonless glow beneath Saturn (or whichever), but the price will be paid in occasional X- and gamma events. Perhaps for this reason we see the extraordinary coal seams, rapid transitions of species, and mass extinctions in the fossil record.

Next, there may have been planetary chaos as expressed -- either in direct statements or in allegory -- in the myths. A limited set of scars will have resulted from that epoch, which had a beginning and an end. Which scars those are, and the preponderance of dendritic -- as opposed to circular -- electrical scarring, is open to interpretation and will require far more field and SEM work than any one has yet suggested.

Next, many scars and sudden destructions of cities may have been the result of a near earth object, and some of the intense plasma formations in the sky may have been the result of solar activity. The power required for the plasma formations reflected in the petroglyphs was calculated by Dr Anthony Peratt, and he found that it could have originated with a flare from the sun.

Next, there are future electrical events which cannot be foreseen -- not with the present systems of observation, and lack of interest.

[nick c]

Still, all electric scars on earth and all mention of electricity in the myths does not necessarily refer to the planets.

I don't think that anyone ever said that it did! Of course it is understood that there was plenty of "debris" in the Solar System during and after the era of planetary encounters. Events of a larger and lesser scale, similar to Tunguska in 1908 and the Great Chicago Fire must have occurred.
[Also, Cardona has written that during the era before the present arrangement of the Solar System, Earth was a moon of the proto Saturn brown dwarf. These types of stars are notorious for flaring up. Many of Earth's previous eras, as recorded in the fossil record, ended in enormous catastrophes that were the result of the Earth bearing the brunt of these flare ups.]

[Brigit Bara]

Still, all electric scars on earth and all mention of electricity in the myths does not necessarily refer to the planets.

I don't think that anyone ever said that it did!

The question arose about whether the sun could darken for a period of days. The responses were that the sun was dark some time previous to the events of Exodus, and since it happened before then it obviously did not happen at the time of the Exodus, and that the sun will not darken in the future. So the disagreement I have is with the answers which attempt to characterize questions about dramatic events and extreme space weather as symptomatic of an irrational collective doomsday fear of something that happened in the distant past, and will not happen again.

Does the electric sun model really preclude the possibility of solar brightening and solar darkening? In other words, is Sol exempt from a nova-type discharge? Is it possible to say for certain that our star will not produce a Mercury or a quasi-stellar or a stellar companion?

[Brigit Bara]

In "Planet Birthing -- More Evidence," we read on holoscience,

However, I argued in my earlier news item that stars “give birth” from time to time by electrical parturition. It occurs in a nova-type discharge from their charged interior. Unlike the hydrogen-bomb model of stars, there is no internal heating. Intense plasma discharges at the stellar surface give rise to starshine. Those discharges synthesize “metals” that continually rain into the star’s depths. The heavy element abundance in a star’s spectrum is not just an inheritance from old supernovae. Stellar interiors become enriched in heavy elements. The star “children” are gas giants or binary partners formed from those heavier elements after expulsion from the star.

Therefore we should simply expect from the electric star model that the longer a star has been shining the more heavy elements it will show in its spectrum and the more time it has had to “give birth.” So stars forming today are not more likely to have planets than earlier generations.

So one parameter we can look at to see if the sun is a candidate for expelling heavier elements is its metallicity.

[nick c]

Assuming that the days of darkness attributed to past catastrophes was the result of planetary interactions then does that preclude any future similar events because of the present solar system stability?
No.
Presumably, the days of darkness were caused by the obstruction of incoming light in the manner of a nuclear winter.
There are no doubt other possible future causes possibly resulting in a similar effect. In fact the term 'nuclear winter' was derived during the Cold War era from the proposed consequences of an all out nuclear war between the West and the Soviet Union. It has also been proposed that asteroid impacts or cometary encounters of sufficient magnitude could do the same.

In the Electric Sun theory the Sun is powered externally by galactic Birkeland Currents. It is assumed that any variation of the incoming power would result in a corresponding change in the solar output, up to and including changing the Sun's position on the H-R diagram. That seems to be unlikely from a probability pov since we generally (there are a few cases) don't see stars doing that.

Any event that would surround the Earth in dust and debris could produce such a result.
So there are many possibilities that could cause a prolonged night or a "twilight of the Gods."

With regard to the OP on this thread. It seems to me that it concerns a supposed (no reference given) prediction of a future catastrophic event. Often the 'prophets' who forecast such events have no knowledge or concern with possible materialistic causation. It is a subjective interpretation, that is, they see this in a religious context.

As such, I regard that prediction (in the OP) as part of the collective effort to remember the past and not of any predictive value in prophesying an actual future event.

[Brigit Bara]

In the article from holoscience, a study by the UofC reports, "Stars with sun-like metal abundances have a 5 to 10 percent chance of having planets. Those with three times more metals than the sun have a 20 percent chance."

But the metallicity of the sun is not exactly settled.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arc ... ty/564836/

Yet ever more precise measurements of the sun’s metallicity have raised more questions than they’ve answered. Astronomers’ inability to solve the mystery known variously as the solar-metallicity, solar-abundance, solar-composition, or solar-modeling problem suggests there could be “something fundamentally wrong” with their understanding of the sun, and therefore of all stars, said Vagnozzi. “That would be huge.”

Twenty years ago, astronomers thought they had the sun sorted. Direct and indirect ways of inferring its metallicity both gauged the sun as approximately 1.8 percent metal—a happy convergence that led them to believe they understood not only the length of their solar yardstick, but also how the sun works. However, throughout the 2000s, increasingly precise spectroscopic measurements of sunlight—a direct probe of the sun’s composition, since each element creates telltale absorption lines in the spectrum—indicated a far lower metallicity of just 1.3 percent. Meanwhile, helioseismology, the competing, indirect approach for inferring metallicity based on the way sound waves of different frequencies propagate through the sun’s interior, still said 1.8 percent.

So that leads me to wonder if the spectroscopic measurements of sunlight are variable enough to give different readings in different years, or even in different months. And anyways, even if the sun is a low 1.3, there is still a possibility of a sudden flash and then the discovery of a new planet in the solar system which was never seen before.

[Brigit Bara]

Oh hi nick c, I didn't see you're post! Thank you for that.

[Brigit Bara]

nick c » Mon Nov 12, 2018 9:49 am

With regard to the OP on this thread. It seems to me that it concerns a supposed (no reference given) prediction of a future catastrophic event....As such, I regard that prediction (in the OP) as part of the collective effort to remember the past and not of any predictive value in prophesying an actual future event.

That is fair enough. The original post contained no reference and was hearsay. Only two verses were given later in the thread which talk about the sun being darkened.

Then the Lord said to Moses, “Stretch out your hand toward heaven, that there may be darkness over the land of Egypt, darkness which may even be felt.” 22 So Moses stretched out his hand toward heaven, and there was thick darkness in all the land of Egypt three days. 23 They did not see one another; nor did anyone rise from his place for three days. But all the children of Israel had light in their dwellings.

&

“And it shall come to pass afterward
That I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh;
Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
Your old men shall dream dreams,
Your young men shall see visions.
29 And also on My menservants and on My maidservants
I will pour out My Spirit in those days.

30 “And I will show wonders in the heavens and in the earth:
Blood and fire and pillars of smoke.
31 The sun shall be turned into darkness,
And the moon into blood,
Joel 2:28-31, fully quoted

[Brigit Bara]

These are not the only verses which talk about the sun being darkened. And as nick c » Mon Nov 12, 2018 9:49 am points out, it is possible to interpret the sun being darkened by either an atmospheric cloud of catastrophic proportions, or a cloud passing over the sun in space. In cases where smoke or a cloud are mentioned in the same verse, it is a sound association.

Two more examples of this kind are in Ez 32 and Rev 9:2.

In Ez 32, almost a thousand years after the first time the sun was darkened in the Exodus, the sun worshipers are still worshiping the sun and the Pharaoh is still claiming to be a god. Ezekiel, warning Egypt that the Babylonians will conquer Egypt, says,

When I put out your light,
I will cover the heavens, and make its stars dark;
I will cover the sun with a cloud,
And the moon shall not give her light.
8 All the bright lights of the heavens I will make dark over you,
And bring darkness upon your land,”
Says the Lord God.

&

Then the fifth angel sounded: And I saw a star fallen from heaven to the earth. To him was given the key to the bottomless pit. 2 And he opened the bottomless pit, and smoke arose out of the pit like the smoke of a great furnace. So the sun and the air were darkened because of the smoke of the pit.

[Brigit Bara]

There are other verses which say the sun will darken. These are associated in the text not with smoke or clouds but with global instability. And to provide more references, here are the verses about the sun brightening, also.

Matthew 24:29 “Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.

Mark 13:24 “But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; 25 the stars of heaven will fall, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken.

Luke 21:25 “And there will be signs in the sun, in the moon, and in the stars; and on the earth distress of nations, with perplexity, the sea and the waves roaring; 26 men’s hearts failing them from fear and the expectation of those things which are coming on the earth, for the powers of the heavens will be shaken.

The sun brightens:

Isaiah 30:26 Moreover the light of the moon will be as the light of the sun, And the light of the sun will be sevenfold, As the light of seven days, In the day that the Lord binds up the bruise of His people And heals the stroke of their wound.

Rev 16:8 Then the fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun, and power was given to him to scorch men with fire. 9 And men were scorched with great heat, and they blasphemed the name of God who has power over these plagues; and they did not repent and give Him glory.

As for global instability, Isaiah likens the earth to a reeling drunkard:

For the windows from on high are open,
And the foundations of the earth are shaken.

19 The earth is violently broken,
The earth is split open,
The earth is shaken exceedingly.
20 The earth shall reel to and fro like a drunkard,
And shall totter like a hut;
Its transgression shall be heavy upon it,
And it will fall, and not rise again.

21 It shall come to pass in that day
That the Lord will punish on high the host of exalted ones,
And on the earth the kings of the earth.

Ch 24

[Brigit Bara]

I am re-posting a little history of stellar brightening and darkening.

"Astronomy is full of phenomena of this kind, and to this very day continues to offer to the eye those representations of chaos of which we have been speaking..."

Emanuel Swedenborg:

"Stars have been known to come into view, and after a lapse of time, to grow obscure and imperceptible: then again to become visible, and again obscure; so that either they altogether disappear, or else, unless some neighbouring stars should in the meantime occupy their vortex, remain in view permanently. Here then we see the origin of the planets actually imaged forth to the eye...Astronomy is full of phenomena of this kind, and to this very day continues to offer to the eye those representations of chaos of which we have been speaking..."

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=16879#p122231

[Brigit Bara]

Is stellar fissioning very "unlikely from a probability pov"?

Without endorsing every method used by the Kepler mission to identify exoplanets, if all of the findings are correct, there are over two thousand stars within their celestial sample which have planets.

Perhaps these involved milder flares than the ones in Swedenborg's list.