5
   

Safire: electric star in a plasma-physics lab

 
 
Reply Sat 23 May, 2015 03:21 pm
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/10/09/the-safire-project-testing-the-electric-sun/
 
Tes yeux noirs
 
  3  
Reply Sat 23 May, 2015 05:07 pm
Pseudo science from a snake oil site.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  6  
Reply Sat 23 May, 2015 05:37 pm
Yeah, but Gunga wants to believe . . .
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Sat 23 May, 2015 06:17 pm
@gungasnake,
why isnt any of this **** published in AGU or Cosmology? Why is it only on the internet?
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 23 May, 2015 08:16 pm
So Joan of Arc was wrong because the English Inquisition wouldn't listen to her??

It's become common knowledge that there was a final cosmic disaster around 535 AD:

http://www.ancient-origins.net/unexplained-phenomena/why-global-climatic-cataclysm-sixth-century-virtually-unheard-001360

Quote:
...
Quote:
There was a sign from the sun, the like of which had never been seen and reported before. The sun became dark and its darkness lasted for 18 months. Each day, it shone for about four hours, and still this light was only a feeble shadow. Everyone declared that the sun would never recover its full light again.
Historiae Ecclesiasticae

Between the years 535 and 536, a series of major global climatic events that took place that could easily be described as a global cataclysm with catastrophic consequences. The above abstract is from the sixth century historian and church leader, John of Ephesus, in his historical work, Church Histories (‘Historiae Ecclesiasticae’).

John of Ephesus is not the only one that mentions this event. Procopius lived between 500 and 565 AD and he was a late antiquities scholar and one of the main historians of the 6th century. He also refers to the strange behaviour of the sun and believed that it was a bad sign and the beginning of other events.

Quote:
… during this year a most dread portent took place. For the sun gave forth its light without brightness...and it seemed exceedingly like the sun in eclipse, for the beams it shed were not clear.,
History of the Wars: The Vandalic War.


And we have yet another reference from the sixth century writer, Zacharias of Mytilene, who authored a chronicle that contains a section referring to the ‘Dark Sun’ for the period of 535/536 AD.

Quote:
The sun began to be darkened by day and the moon by night, while the ocean was tumultuous with spray from the 24th of March in this year till the 24th of June in the following year... And, as the winter was a severe one, so much so that from the large and unwonted quantity of snow the birds perished... there was distress... among men... from the evil things,
Zacharias of Mytilene (Chronicle, 9.19, 10.1)...



Read more: http://www.ancient-origins.net/unexplained-phenomena/why-global-climatic-cataclysm-sixth-century-virtually-unheard-001360#ixzz3b1An5c5P
Follow us: @ancientorigins on Twitter | ancientoriginsweb on Facebook



It should be obvious enough that if our sun actually were some sort of a 4B year old thermonuclear furnace as is commonly taught, that it would have reached equilibrium eons ago and would not heat up and cool down periodically (medieval optimum ==> Little Ice Age) or practically go out for a year and a half (535 - 536).

All that really leaves is the EU idea of the sun being a plasma physics phenomenon powered by one or more cosmic Birkeland currents. The current dies down for a while, the star dies down for a while....
farmerman
 
  4  
Reply Sun 24 May, 2015 12:42 am
@gungasnake,
I think you posted on the wrong one of your many threads. You post and run so that you have really no knoqledge about what youve even posted about.

Your handle should be " Gone Ga"
gungasnake
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 24 May, 2015 02:53 am
@farmerman,
I meant the reply for this thread. The two are related.

But you haven't addressed the point of logic. How would our sun all but go out for a year and a half it it were a 4B year old thermonuclear furnace?
Tes yeux noirs
 
  2  
Reply Sun 24 May, 2015 03:39 am
@gungasnake,
Who says that the Sun did "go out"? Crackpots excluded?
gungasnake
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 24 May, 2015 03:42 am
@Tes yeux noirs,
read the article...

http://www.ancient-origins.net/unexplained-phenomena/why-global-climatic-cataclysm-sixth-century-virtually-unheard-001360
0 Replies
 
Tes yeux noirs
 
  2  
Reply Sun 24 May, 2015 04:07 am
Quote:
Whether or not the answer will ever be found is unknown

Doesn't sound very definite to me.
gungasnake
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 24 May, 2015 05:01 am
@Tes yeux noirs,
The article cites several reliable historical sources to the effect that there actually was a year in which sun went all but dead for a year and a half or thereabouts.
Tes yeux noirs
 
  2  
Reply Sun 24 May, 2015 05:05 am
@gungasnake,
Quote:
The article cites several reliable historical sources to the effect that there actually was a year in which sun went all but dead for a year and a half or thereabouts.

None of them say the sun ceased to shine, or reduced its output, just that its light was obscured on Earth, like Krakatoa later on.
gungasnake
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 24 May, 2015 05:45 am
@Tes yeux noirs,
Quote:
None of them say the sun ceased to shine, or reduced its output...


Quote:
There was a sign from the sun, the like of which had never been seen and reported before. The sun became dark and its darkness lasted for 18 months. Each day, it shone for about four hours, and still this light was only a feeble shadow. Everyone declared that the sun would never recover its full light again.
Historiae Ecclesiasticae

Between the years 535 and 536, a series of major global climatic events that took place that could easily be described as a global cataclysm with catastrophic consequences. The above abstract is from the sixth century historian and church leader, John of Ephesus, in his historical work, Church Histories (‘Historiae Ecclesiasticae’


The only question in the picture is the cause of the disaster. The article notes:

Quote:
The important question in all of this is, why did it happen? While there are no definite answers, one theory that has been put forward is that there was a large asteroid or comet impact which landed in the sea (if it hit land there would be evidence of a crater). Geologist Dallas Abbott is one proponent of this view and bases his view on evidence that he found studying ice cores from Greenland. However, this wouldn’t explain the dim light of the sun, and no tsunamis have been recorded for this period, which would have occurred if an asteroid landed in the ocean.


The language in the various historical quotes is clear enough. The authors all talk about the sun going all but dead; they do not talk about volcanoes or the sky being clouded with dust or the air being filled or ground covered with ash or dust of any sort.


0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 24 May, 2015 05:47 am
When you think about it, the sun shining for four hours a day in Greece or Italy is not something which any volcano would ever cause.
0 Replies
 
Tes yeux noirs
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 May, 2015 05:58 am
OK I surrender. The sun went out. Far out!!!
farmerman
 
  4  
Reply Sun 24 May, 2015 07:19 am
@Tes yeux noirs,
Tree ring data and Ice core data support a multi event that was even more intense than Tambora in 1815.

1. Ice core data from Greenland support a two volcano year in 534 to 535. The Ice cores show a gradual lowering of sea water temp and the accretion of SO4 particulates in the ice layers from the 534-536 time period. (as well as dust at high latitudes). The volcanoes possibly responsible were RABAUL in the S Pacific and TIERRA BLANCA (TBJ) in Central America. The data from the ice cores showed that this dust was quite a bit more severe than the famous "year without a summer" in 1815, surely noone posed a "dimming of the sun" for 1815 so I imagine the SO4 and O18/O16 isotope ratio data in the ice cores also support an acidic dust cloud originating from one or both of these big volcanoes.

2. Also, Lamont found evidence of a collection of tektite deposits in the same time period indicating a bolide impact somewhere in earth. Thats from 2012 so Im sure someones hunting for a dateable crater



We dont have to automatically start jumping on more unrealistic reasons for climatic data when many areas of science are already busy analyzing earths history and many of these climatic "anomalies"
.

farmerman
 
  4  
Reply Sun 24 May, 2015 07:28 am
@farmerman,
Quote:

The important question in all of this is, why did it happen? While there are no definite answers, one theory that has been put forward is that there was a large asteroid or comet impact which landed in the sea (if it hit land there would be evidence of a crater). Geologist Dallas Abbott is one proponent of this view and bases his view on evidence that he found studying ice cores from Greenland. However, this wouldn’t explain the dim light of the sun, and no tsunamis have been recorded for this period, which would have occurred if an asteroid landed in the ocean.


Dallas Abbot is a known bolide hunter. Shes been identifying submarine craters and dating them. The fact that she did NOT mention the volcanic evidence means that she was probably
"Quote mined" by someone who wanted to LIMIT her views to saying that "NO we havent seen any mtrorites hitting the earth during that time period"

Some of these "Elctric Earth" clowns are kinda like the Creationists, eager but unarmed.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 24 May, 2015 11:54 am
I see this one as a question of language. None of the accounts, as written, are talking about a volcano or at least not as a causal agent, and the stories about the sun all but going out are clear. Now if it were just one version of the story, you might could believe that something had been mistranslated, but are we supposed to believe that ALL of the various accounts, from different nations, have been mistranslated the same way by different translators??
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Sun 24 May, 2015 01:32 pm
@gungasnake,
well, the "lectric guys" cant ignore the clear evidence that the sulfate levels in the Greenland Ice cores that covered those years can only be explained by a great volcanic eruption that probably dimmed the light by all the dust in the stratosphere.

Im gonna go with Lamont Dougherty, instead of the Kingfish's wife
farmerman
 
  4  
Reply Sun 24 May, 2015 01:36 pm
@farmerman,
Anyway, this occured in the 6th century when there werent any "accounts" from Central America or mid Pacific.
Folks in Europe were enduring the consequences and not experiencing the causes.

Even today, were it not for satellite sensing, we could totally miss

volcanic eruptions in the Antarctic or In Tierra del Fuego



These guys are jumping to conclusions without looking at ALL the evidence available. They have a story to push so any time some collection of stories or "historical account" shows up, they jump on it without much skepticim or further reseqrch.


(Its not anything linguistic)
0 Replies
 
 

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Safire: electric star in a plasma-physics lab
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/19/2020 at 04:15:01