Grey Cloud wrote:Hi Toroid,
Have you read the book? If you have, can you give us the quote and page number please? A lot of peole on this forum would be interested I'm sure.
The quote you have provided allegedly comes from a 1993 book titled 'The First Global Revolution'. I say 'allegedly' because the quote does not appear to exist, certainly not on those pages and I have searched the book. Have you actually read this book or have you just lifted the quote of some blog or website?
The Enemy of Humanity is Man
In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions
these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking
symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed atritudes and behaviour that they can be overtome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.
The First Global Revolution, p75. [emphasis in original]
They will hike up the prices of gas, oil, diesel, coal with the excuse that we must be more fuel efficient and produce less CO2 and pollution to save the planet.
The statement still tells us that global warming, among other things, was an idea to motivate people.
Correspondence is not causation. I would disagree about NASA being trustworthy.But the debate here is whether sunspots cause climate change. There are heaps of evidence that sunspot cycles correspond very nicely with extreme weather events. Some data is available on this thread from such eminently trusted sources as NASA.
I guess it depends. As far as collecting data is concerned they are very reliable, when it comes to interpreting that data in a theoretical context...well that's another story.I would disagree about NASA being trustworthy.
Chris Reeve says:
December 23, 2010 at 10:49 am
Wal Thornhill writes:
“Sunspots are dark instead of bright, which is prima facie evidence that heat is not trying to escape from within. And the Sun’s corona is millions of degrees hotter than the photosphere. These simple observations point to the energy source of the Sun being external. Add to this the dominant influence of magnetic fields on the Sun’s external behavior and we arrive at the necessity for an electrical energy supply. It is the “subtle radiation traversing space which the star picks up,” and which Eddington immediately dismissed because his gravitational model required energy to be generated at the core of the star to bloat it to the observed size.”
Eugene Parker writes:
“[T]he pedestrian Sun exhibits a variety of phenomena that defy contemporary theoretical understanding. We need look no farther than the sunspot, or the intensely filamentary structure of the photospheric magnetic field, or the spicules, or the origin of the small magnetic bipoles that continually emerge in the supergranules, or the heat source that maintains the expanding gas in the coronal hole, or the effective magnetic diffusion that is so essential for understanding the solar dynamo, or the peculiar internal rotation inferred from helioseismology, or the variation of solar brightness with the level of solar activity, to name a few of the more obvious mysterious macrophysical phenomena exhibited by the Sun.”
More from Wal Thornhill …
“Countless billions of dollars have been wasted based on the thermonuclear model of stars. For example, trying to generate electricity from thermonuclear fusion, “just like the Sun.” The thought that solar scientists have it completely backwards has not troubled anyone’s imagination. The little fusion power that has been generated on Earth has required phenomenal electric power input, “just like the Sun!” The Sun and all stars consume electrical energy to produce their heat and light and cause some thermonuclear fusion in their atmospheres. The heavy elements formed there are seen in stellar spectra. It explains why the expected solar neutrino count is low and anti-correlated with sunspot numbers. It explains why many stars are considered “chemically peculiar.” Get the physics right first and the mathematics will follow.”
(These quotes come from “Our Misunderstood Sun” at http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=ah63dzac, and are intended to remind people that putting sugar sprinkles onto a turd does not make it taste or smell any better. We need to be looking at errors in the foundational assumptions that go into these models.)
REPLY: “And the Sun’s corona is millions of degrees hotter than the photosphere. These simple observations point to the energy source of the Sun being external. ”
Really? What rubbish. – Anthony
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 23, 2010 at 12:54 pm
Chris Reeve says:
December 23, 2010 at 10:49 am
REPLY: “And the Sun’s corona is millions of degrees hotter than the photosphere. These simple observations point to the energy source of the Sun being external. ”Really? What rubbish. – Anthony
Rubbish, indeed. As so much else.
Chris Reeve says:
December 23, 2010 at 11:50 am
I don’t think that this is too much to ask for on what is in truth one of the most complex questions facing mankind: What powers the Sun.
This has been known since 1938.
phlogiston says:
December 23, 2010 at 1:36 pm
REPLY: “And the Sun’s corona is millions of degrees hotter than the photosphere. These simple observations point to the energy source of the Sun being external. ”
Really? What rubbish. – Anthony
Chris Reeve:
“Countless billions of dollars have been wasted based on the thermonuclear model of stars”
All these years thinking that things fall down when you drop them and stars are fuelled by hydrogen fusion to helium (the two elements that the sun oddly consists of in about the right balance) – but no … what you say makes wonderful sense all of a sudden. All the sun’s energy is instead mysteriously transmitted in an unmeasurable way through space! And all that material in the sun just sits there and generates no energy! Obvious when you think about it.
But lets not stop there. “Countless billions” have also been wasted on that other great scientific fallacy – the Copernical / Galilean model of the earth orbiting the sun. Any fool can tell you the sun orbits the earth! Ptolemy and those wise old Greeks were right – the apparent orbits are all the result of epicycles. The earth is stationary at the center of the Universe after all. How nice!
Electric energy transmission also makes much more sense between the spherical glass balls of the epicycles, within which all the heavenly bodies are embedded. No need to worry about those fantastic huge distances which make electric fields negligible.
Sparks between glass spheres – it all looks nostalgically like those old Gothic sci-fi horror movies, Frankenstein’s monster etc. All you need is some black and red costumes and cloaks, some white face powder and a nice big organ for sound effects.
Talking of Sci-fi, Chris Reeve – weren’t you in those Superman films and didn’t you – um – die?
O I forgot – now that there is no gravity, death is reversable also?
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 23, 2010 at 1:45 pm
Dave Springer says:
December 23, 2010 at 11:56 am
The corona, because it’s so vacuous, throws off almost no radiation and neither does it absorb a significant amount .There is another more important reason. To radiate an electron must transition from one bound quantum state to another one. 99% of the corona is fully ionized, meaning that the electrons are free, not bound, and therefore cannot radiate.
That’s why it isn’t visible except during a full eclipse.what you see during a total eclipse is actually not radiation from the million degree corona. 99% of the light comes from the photosphere [which is why the corona is white] and is scattered off electrons and dust particles surrounding the Sun.
Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests