Earth Changes and the Human-Cosmic Connection

[KJN]

I love this book. There are so many concepts that seem to just flow effortlessly and that makes all the difference in grabbing onto a concept and having it almost instantly integrate. Kudos!

I did find one thing to mention. On page 39: "Note the moon doesn't spin."

This is incorrect. The moon has one rotation per revolution around the earth. In order for the same face of the moon to always be pointed at the earth, it has to do one rotation. Have someone be the "earth" and you be the "moon." As you revolve around the earth (always facing the earth), notice which walls you look at. Take that person out of the center and then face all four walls in succession. You will have rotated once.

-----
Reference: http://www.space.com/24871-does-the-moon-rotate.html

Does the Moon Rotate?
by Nola Taylor Redd, SPACE.com Contributor | February 28, 2014 08:39pm ET

Attentive observers on Earth might notice that the moon essentially keeps the same side facing our planet as it passes through its orbit. This may lead to the question, does the moon rotate? The answer is yes, though it may seem contrary to what our eyes observe.

The 'dark' side of the moon

The moon orbits the Earth once every 27.322 days. It also takes approximately 27 days for the moon to rotate once on its axis. As a result, the moon does not seem to be spinning but appears to observers from Earth to be keeping almost perfectly still. Scientists call this sychronous rotation.

The side of the moon that perpetually faces Earth is known as the near side. The opposite or "back" side is the far side. Sometimes the far side is called the dark side of the moon, but this is inaccurate. When the moon is between the Earth and the sun, during the new moon phase, the back side of the moon is bathed in daylight.
-----

Perhaps there is a teensy tiny bit of Lorentz force in play???

 

[Pierre]

I love this book. There are so many concepts that seem to just flow effortlessly and that makes all the difference in grabbing onto a concept and having it almost instantly integrate. Kudos!

I did find one thing to mention. On page 39: "Note the moon doesn't spin."

This is incorrect. The moon has one rotation per revolution around the earth. In order for the same face of the moon to always be pointed at the earth, it has to do one rotation. Have someone be the "earth" and you be the "moon." As you revolve around the earth (always facing the earth), notice which walls you look at. Take that person out of the center and then face all four walls in succession. You will have rotated once.

-----
Reference: http://www.space.com/24871-does-the-moon-rotate.html

Does the Moon Rotate?
by Nola Taylor Redd, SPACE.com Contributor | February 28, 2014 08:39pm ET

Attentive observers on Earth might notice that the moon essentially keeps the same side facing our planet as it passes through its orbit. This may lead to the question, does the moon rotate? The answer is yes, though it may seem contrary to what our eyes observe.

The 'dark' side of the moon

The moon orbits the Earth once every 27.322 days. It also takes approximately 27 days for the moon to rotate once on its axis. As a result, the moon does not seem to be spinning but appears to observers from Earth to be keeping almost perfectly still. Scientists call this sychronous rotation.

The side of the moon that perpetually faces Earth is known as the near side. The opposite or "back" side is the far side. Sometimes the far side is called the dark side of the moon, but this is inaccurate. When the moon is between the Earth and the sun, during the new moon phase, the back side of the moon is bathed in daylight.
-----

Perhaps there is a teensy tiny bit of Lorentz force in play???

You're right the Moon does spin. It might be indeed some tiny Lorentz force since in the past the moon had some magnetism. See D.E. Scott, "The Electric Sky" (p.214):

The Moon’s surface does bear remnant magnetism. The rocks returned to Earth by our Moon landings showed evidence of this magnetism. Unfortunately, the orientation of the rocks prior to removal was not recorded.

 

[Keyhole]

I have just finished this groundbreaking book! (no pun intented ) Reading how many people say they found it an easy read... I'll be honest and admit I had a bit of a hard time getting through some sections Like the others in the Secret History series, there is just SO MUCH information, it was overwhelming at times... I had to pause periodically while reading just to reflect and re-read some of the science.

Pierre, while reading the last chapter where you have linked everything back to Gurdjieff, and the importance of the group dynamic and collectively resonating with the "truth frequency" - I am now starting to see why it is so important to be part of the group. I remember reading in ISOTM about 'schools' and what the C's have said about networking and harnessing a frequency. But it is only after reading this book that something actually 'clicked'...

"Each individual assessment must be objective, true

Assessments must be shared

A critical mass of complimentary assessments must be conducted in order to fully 'map' the elephant"

The more people contribute and network, the more of the "Elephant" we are able to see!

I think it was extremely well laid out, the short snappy chapters made the science a lot more easily digestible and perfect way to finish the book linking hard scientific evidence with esoteric ideas... Congratulations and Thanks to everyone who contributed :) Fantastic!

 

[Pierre]

The more people contribute and network, the more of the "Elephant" we are able to see!

Judging from your avatar picture, it seems that you have already figured out the shape of the "Elephant" ;)

Like the others in the Secret History series, there is just SO MUCH information, it was overwhelming at times... I had to pause periodically while reading just to reflect and re-read some of the science.

I guess it depends on how familiar the reader is with the Sott material and science in general. It is always difficult to write a book that is accessible enough for the beginners and interesting enough for the initiate. In any case, as you said, if it feels overwhelming, the right decision is to slow down and give yourself time to digest the data.

Congratulations and Thanks to everyone who contributed :) Fantastic!

Thank for your feedback :)

And although there are only two names on the cover, it was truly a collective work.

 

[Chad]

The following was tweeted a while ago and i've just had chance to look it up. Original post by Stephen Goddard, who specializes in debunking the establishment line on climate change.

Apparently the quote is from a letter to a newspaper The Maitland Mercury & Hunter River General Advertiser, Wednesday 11 March 1846 and Australian aboriginals claimed the rains were more frequent and since the arrival of 'the white man' they are plagued by drought.

It could be true, it could be that the time between arrival and change was longer than it implies or summin else :)

Below is the quote - and having read the full letter i think the except is the most relevant - and attached is a scan of the excerpt, from the original, found here: _http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/679787?searchTerm=climate%20change&searchLimits=

Blame the whites for climate change?

Back when the climate was perfect, and there was no internet, no cars, no electricity lines, and not a single evil coal fired station – ominously, the Australian climate was changing.

Back in 1846, the population of Australia was essentially just the size of the city of Canberra (a mere 340,000 people). They all rode bikes, or horses, or walked to work; it was “Earth Hour” every hour; every plasma screen was not just on standby, it was permanently unplugged.

Yet the flooding rains were giving way to droughts, and the creeks were drying up. Aboriginals said that the climate has undergone this change “since white-man came in country.”

Stephen Goddard found the quote.

The Maitland Mercury & Hunter River General Advertiser, Wednesday 11 March 1846

Quote:

“That great changes have taken place in the climate of Australia all testimonies satisfactorily prove. It is evident to any observer, at some period, the country has been subjected to the mighty action of heavy rains, and of sweeping, deluging floods. The mountains and hills are cut and furrowed into deep ravines ; the parting ridges are at acute angles, and frequently washed bare of vegetable mould ; and all so precipitous, that the waters are no sooner showered from the blessed heavens than they run off with rapidity and fury through the gullies into the recipient creeks, scarcely leaving a witness of their visit, either as running brook, clear spring, or stagnant pool, a few days, perhaps a few hours, after. The aborigines say that the climate has undergone this change since white-man came in country. ”

_http://trove.nla.gov.au/: The Maitland Mercury & Hunter River General Advertiser, Wednesday 11 March 1846

And so history repeats. The climate is always changing and it’s always blamed on target number one, whomever that may happen to be. If it wasn’t the witches, it mustv’e been the whites.

That said, the Aboriginals may possibly have had a point. On a regional scale, the little skeptic points out that European land development may affect local weather patterns:

“Australian native vegetation holds more moisture, than broadacre crops and improved pastures, and this moisture evaporates and recycles back as rainfall and also helps raise humidity. It also reflects less shortwave solar radiation into space, and this process keeps the surface temperature cooler and aids cloud formation.”

Though I’m not sure how much land-clearing had been done by 1846. I suspect it was minor.

 

[Deleted member 9511]

Great book.

It provides wonderful context for sott.

I particularly enjoyed the discussion of Information, Energy and Matter - the Cosmic Trinity. I notice how well those three, IEM, correlate well with the concepts of causal, subtle and gross bodies. Information causes energy to order matter. While that looks like a one-way street, with a causal starting point, it makes more sense to me that the three, IEM, arise simultaneously, or rather, they are ever-present and appear in accordance with the resonance of the witness (observer, self, perspective, etc.).

I also like the discussion of resonance and how that pertains to consciousness (human or otherwise). The point was made that a few individuals resonating with truth can have huge influence. The discussion of truth and lies as information calls to mind a few things learned from spiritual adepts.

One Himalayan Master with whom I have had close personal contact has written "There is no untruth in Truth, but there is Truth in untruth." I see that as the essence of the Purna Mantra: "Om purnamadah purnamidam purnat purnamudachyate. Purnasya purnamadaya purnamevavashisyate." Which means: "This is whole; that is whole. Taking away whole from whole, whole still remains whole." In other words, truth is what it is and cannot be reduced, and it reigns supreme. His teaching is simply to align with Truth. He also hints at a spiritual hierarchy of individuals (I am recalling the alchemists in "Secret History" vol. 1) who maintain balance without seeming to do anything in particular on the gross level.

Another favorite is the late Dr. David Hawkins, whose calibrated field of consciousness, described in his "Power vs. Force" series, while somewhat dubious in it's minutiae, provides a compelling argument that Truth has a synergistic, resonant power. He also suggests that a few, highly-evolved, conscious beings have the power to counter-balance evil in the world. But don't assume they necessarily do anything either. We are still, according to Hawkins, subject to "karmic propensity and prevailing local conditions."

So much to like about this book.

 

[zim]

I received the book this week, in the moments I could read parts, I love it, because it is easy to understand, I´m reading about plasma, and its getting more and more interesting, wow!! Really great. Thanks Pierre, hope I can advance reading more and more ti undertand the Earth change better....

 

[SeekinTruth]

Since this thread was "bumped up," it reminds me that I still haven't found time to read it a second time. I need to reread ECatHCC again to solidify understanding. I read it the first time in around two days, so gotta try to make the time to refresh some of the connections made in the book. Looking forward to enjoying it a second time soon....

 

[Anthony]

I'm reading it for the third time, I always manage to find something new,
I guess that as earth changes progress the book will become even more
relevant.

 

[gdpetti]

Has anyone looked at the length of time this 'dark star' would be seen in our skies? Weeks to months as it discharges? That has to be an extremely limited window with a 28 million year elliptical orbit.

 

[Yas]

I've just received the book!

WOW! it looks fantastic! very niche publishing work!

I'm sure the content will also be awesome.

Thank you so much for the work of putting it together.

 

[hlat]

Should I put possible errors in this thread or https://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,33641.msg464040.html ? I have the printed copy.

Page 33 footnote 52 has the spelling Christian Birkeland, and page 37 has Kristian Birkeland.

 

[Pierre]

Should I put possible errors in this thread or https://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,33641.msg464040.html ?

You can put the errors you find in this thread since other members have already done so. Btw good catch concerning the spelling of Birkeland's first name.

 

[HiThere]

Just finished this book. Thank you for a well-written and concise book that puts these matters into context. :)

 

[hlat]

I'm trying to understand the lorentz force. If an electric current is a straight line, then the magnetic field goes in a right hand circle around the line, so then the lorentz force also goes in a right hand circle around the line but is 90 degrees out of phase from the magnetic field?