Earth Changes and the Human-Cosmic Connection

[hlat]

It seems one of the negative acts attributed to 4D STS is their time traveling manipulations. However, pages 298-299 discuss scientific studies that demonstrate 3D STS people also alter the past and future. Furthermore, it seems the Cassiopaean sessions are 6D STO communications from the future. Thus, it appears that time travel to change the past or future is a neutral aspect of reality, and the goodness or evilness of time travel alterations is dependent on the particular situation.

 

[Altair]

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.

Was it already corrected in the recently published French translation? We translate the book into German and Russian and don't know how we should handle this part.

 

[no-mans-land]

Hi Pierre,

we currently translate your book into German and a question appeared regarding two sentences (p8, chapter 2):

The strength of the magnetic field produced by an electric current (e.g., a cosmic-sized Birkelandcurrent) falls off inversely as the first power of the distance from the current. Both electrostatic and gravitational forces between stars fall off inversely as the square of the distance.15

There electromagnetism and electrostatics are somehow mix together. While electromagnetism deals with moving charges, electrostatics describes fields containing non moving charges as a special sub field of electromagnetism.

In this chapter, it is referred to electromagnetism, also while describing the Millikam experiment, when the experiment itself is shows the effect of electrostatics. Also, I am not sure if Birkenland currents can be described as electromagnetic or electrostatic. Since I have no idea how to read the mathematical stuff to compare if the two fields behave the same if it comes to growing distances in space or if the working force here are two entirely different things.

Can you help here and clear up how to translate that without to cause confusion?

 

[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.

Was it already corrected in the recently published French translation? We translate the book into German and Russian and don't know how we should handle this part.

Yes, it has been corrected in the French version. I'll post the relevant excerpt in a minute.

 

[Pierre]

Hi Pierre,

we currently translate your book into German and a question appeared regarding two sentences (p8, chapter 2):

The strength of the magnetic field produced by an electric current (e.g., a cosmic-sized Birkelandcurrent) falls off inversely as the first power of the distance from the current. Both electrostatic and gravitational forces between stars fall off inversely as the square of the distance.15

There electromagnetism and electrostatics are somehow mix together. While electromagnetism deals with moving charges, electrostatics describes fields containing non moving charges as a special sub field of electromagnetism.

In this chapter, it is referred to electromagnetism, also while describing the Millikam experiment, when the experiment itself is shows the effect of electrostatics. Also, I am not sure if Birkenland currents can be described as electromagnetic or electrostatic. Since I have no idea how to read the mathematical stuff to compare if the two fields behave the same if it comes to growing distances in space or if the working force here are two entirely different things.

Can you help here and clear up how to translate that without to cause confusion?

You're right 'electromagnetism' refers to currents, while 'electrostatic' refers to charges. So the term 'electrostatic' applies to the force between (charged) stars while 'electromagnetic' applies to Birkeland currents. Therefore I would not change anything to the sentences you quoted.

I hope it helps and good luck for the translation :)

 

[Pierre]

Yes, it has been corrected in the French version. I'll post the relevant excerpt in a minute.

I quickly translated the excerpt in English. Here it is:

Note that the Moon hardly rotates. As we have already explained, the Moon doesn't have a double layer. It does not have any plasmasphere because its electric potential is equivalent to the potential of the surrounding space. The electric potential being equal, the Moon is not subject to any electric current, so no Lorentz force can be generated, hence the almost absent rotation.

However, the Moon rotates on itself once during each orbit around the Earth, which takes 27 days, while it takes the same amount of time for it to spin once around its axis. That's the reason why the Moon always shows the same face to the Earth.

Thus the Moon is subject to a 'lock' rather than a spin, possibly due to the Moon's residual magnetism [insert reference to Scott footnote here] 'locking' its visible face relative to Earth.

 

[Altair]

Yes, it has been corrected in the French version. I'll post the relevant excerpt in a minute.

I quickly translated the excerpt in English. Here it is:

Note that the Moon hardly rotates. As we have already explained, the Moon doesn't have a double layer. It does not have any plasmasphere because its electric potential is equivalent to the potential of the surrounding space. The electric potential being equal, the Moon is not subject to any electric current, so no Lorentz force can be generated, hence the almost absent rotation.

However, the Moon rotates on itself once during each orbit around the Earth, which takes 27 days, while it takes the same amount of time for it to spin once around its axis. That's the reason why the Moon always shows the same face to the Earth.

Thus the Moon is subject to a 'lock' rather than a spin, possibly due to the Moon's residual magnetism [insert reference to Scott footnote here] 'locking' its visible face relative to Earth.

Thanks Pierre!

 

[patty2292]

Just finished this book. Had some free time in work, and i literally could not put my kindle down with every minute i got spare!

Hooked from start to finish due to it being extremely reader friendly, yet explaining everything in detail and its full magnitude. The ending really hit my hard being honest, with the scale of what forces are at play and what its actually attracting with the previous chapters to back it up. It was a big alarm clock!

 

[Cosmos]

Nemesis and/or two new Planets finally discovered?

Two new large objects were just discovered, probably part of our solar system:

http://phys.org/news/2015-12-discovery-large-outer-edges-solar.html

Report of discovery of large object in far outer edges of solar system incites skeptical reactions

(Phys.org)—Two separate teams of researchers (one from Mexico, the other Sweden), have incited skepticism among the astronomy community by posting papers on the preprint server arXiv each describing a different large object they observed in the outer edges of the solar system. Both teams made their observations after reviewing data from ALMA—a cluster of radio dishes in the Chilean mountains.

One of the objects was found to be near W Aquilae in the night sky—the other adjacent to Alpha Centauri . Both groups report being skeptical at first regarding a faint glow, but monitored what they had seen nonetheless—to their surprise they found that the objects appeared to mover relative to the stars behind them, which suggested they might be relatively close and that they might be orbiting the sun. Neither group was able to gain much evidence regarding the properties of the objects they had spied, because both of them were only able to make two observations, but both teams suggest there was enough data to allow for ruling out the object being an ordinary star.

The Swedish team nick-named the object they observed Gna, after a Nordic God known for its swiftness, and have told the press they had no intention of suggesting they had found the mythical Planet X which supposedly lies somewhere beyond Pluto. Instead they suggest it might be a large asteroid. The team from Mexico went a little further suggesting that the object they observed might possibly turn out to be a brown dwarf.

There is also the possibility, as some astronomers who have read the two papers suggest, that either or both of the objects are merely illusions, random blips or noise that for a moment or two appeared to take the shape of a very far away object. Some have even tweeted their opinions, insinuating that jumping on the Planet X bandwagon would be sheer folly.

Despite the skepticism, it is likely that other research groups will be training their instruments on the piece of sky where the objects were possibly seen, to prove or disprove their existence and to put a stop to the conjecture. Both of the teams involved have voiced their support of such efforts, noting that they would like an explanation for what they observed.

The papers about the two objects:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1512.02652
http://arxiv.org/abs/1512.02650

As stated above, the swedish team named their discovery Gna and say following in the paper:

Based on our analysis, we conclude that a single object (with a flux of ∼3.0 mJy) exhibiting a large proper motion (∼87 arcsec/yr) is the most likely explanation. Until the nature of the source becomes clear, we have named it Gna. Unless there are yet unknown, but significant, issues with ALMA observations, we have detected a previously unknown objects in our solar system. Based on proper motion analysis we find that, if it is gravitationally bound, Gna is currently located at 12−25 AU distance and has a size of ∼220−880 km. Alternatively it is a much larger, planet-sized, object, gravitationally unbound, and located within ∼4000 AU, or beyond (out to ∼0.3~pc) if it is strongly variable.

About the other object that was discovered by the mexican team:

ALMA observations 10 months apart revealed a new blackbody point source that is apparently comoving with α Cen B. We exclude that source to be a sub-/stellar member of the α Centauri system, but argue that it is either an extreme TNO, a Super-Earth or a very cool brown dwarf in the outer realm of the solar system.

Further they give three different possible explanations for what the mexican discovery could be:

- A less then 100 astronomical units [AU= Distance Earth-Sun) distant dwarf planet, in the approximate size of the transneptunian Objekt Sedna, with a diameter of 1000 Kilometers

- An [u]approximately 300 AU distant Super-Earth[/u] (that means a rocky planet, about 10 times the size of the Earth). If that is the case it could be Planet-X.

- Or an approximately 20.000 AU distant brown dwarf star, as a stellar companion of our sun. Aka: maybe Nemesis which has been searched for by astronomers for quite some time.

Would be interesting to compare the data above with what Pierre wrote in Earthchanges and what the C's have said about Nemesis and as of yet unknown planets of our solar system...

Keep in mind though, that those were relatively short observations, which means that their data could be off.

 

[no-mans-land]

Would be interesting to compare the data above with what Pierre wrote in Earthchanges and what the C's have said about Nemesis and as of yet unknown planets of our solar system...

Keep in mind though, that those were relatively short observations, which means that their data could be off.

For reference, in the book Earthchanges, Pierre wrote:

Figure 43 displays Nemesis’ orbit and the solar system. This simulation is based on the following hypothesis: Nemesis’ mass = 56% of the Sun’s mass. Nemesis’ perihelion = 49 AU (roughly the distance between the Sun and Pluto). Duration of Nemesis’ orbit = 26.9-million-year cycle as calculated by Mellot and Bambach. As a result the speed of Nemesis (relative to the Sun at the perihelion) would be 4.66 miles/s. The aphelion (the greatest distance between the Sun and Nemesis) would be 203,000 AU, i.e. 3.21 light years.

The C's once said:

4 July 1998 (notice, BEFORE the remote viewing Johnno found)

Q: (A) I am trying to write down some things about a
cosmology, and I have some questions mainly about the
coming events. First there was the story of the sun's
companion brown star which is apparently approaching the
solar system, and I would like to know, if possible,
details of its orbit; that is, how far it is, what is its
speed, and when it will be first seen. Can we know it?
Orbit: how close will it come?

A: Flat eliptical.

Q: (A) But how close will it come?

A: Distance depends upon other factors, such as intersecting
orbit of locator of witness.

Q: (L) What is the closest it could come to earth... (A)
Solar system... (L) Yes, but which part of the solar
system? We have nine planets... which one? (A) I
understand that this brown star will enter the Oort
cloud... (L) I think they said it just brushes against it
and the gravity disturbs it...

A: Passes through Oort cloud on orbital journey. Already has
done this on its way "in."

Q: (A) You mean it has already entered the Oort cloud?

A: Has passed through.

Q: (A) So, it will not approach...

A: Oort cloud is located on outer perimeter orbital plane at
distance of approximately averaged distance of
510,000,000,000 miles. (That makes 5.500 AU)

Q: (L) Well, 510 billion miles gives us some time! (A) Yes,
but what I want to know... this Oort cloud is around the
solar system, so this brown star, once it has passed
through... (L) It must already be in the solar system?
(A) No, it could have passed through and may not come
closer. Is it coming closer or not? Is it coming closer
all the time?

While looking at what the C's once said about yet unknown planets in our solar system:

September 30, 1994

Q: (L) Could you tell us the names of all the planets, their distances from the sun, the chemical composition, and the diameter.

A:

* Mercury=Opatanar, 36 million miles from Sun; 3000 mi. diameter.

* Venus=Pemuntar, 67 million miles from Sun; 7,500 mi. diameter.

* Earth=Saras, 93 million miles from Sun; 7,900 mi. diameter.

* Mars=Masar, 141,500,000 miles from Sun; 4,200 mi. diameter.

* Jupiter=Yontar, 483,400,000 miles from Sun; 88,700 diameter.

* Saturn=Zendar, 886,700,000 miles from Sun; 74,500 diameter.

* Uranus=Lonoponor, 1,782,700,000 miles from Sun; 31,566 diameter.

* Neptune=Jinoar, 2,794,300,000 miles from Sun; 30,199 diameter.

* Pluto=Opikimanaras, 3,666,100,000 miles from Sun; 1,864 diameter.

* NI=Montonanas, 570,000,000,000 (6.100 AU) miles from Sun; solid matter; 7000 miles diameter.

* NII=Suvurutarcar, 830,000,000,000 miles from Sun (9000 AU); 18000 miles diameter; hydrogen, ammonia.

* NIII=Bikalamanar, 1,600,000,000,000 miles from Sun (17.200 AU); 46000 miles diameter; hydrogen, ammonia.

So, by comparing the numbers stated in the papers, there is no candidate that would fit the profile here. Though, if the figure of 20.000 AU for the brown dwarf is the correct one, and the calculations from Pierre about the aphelion of 200.000 AU, it's still pretty close and probably indeed approaching. But to come into the solar system to reach 49 AU, it would still take a lot of time.

Another possibility is, that the Gna object is similar to the object the C called 'Montonanas' though the proposed diameter of just 7000 miles seems too small.

However, hopefully they make some measurements to narrow down what it actually is.

 

[Human]

Nemesis and/or two new Planets finally discovered?

Two new large objects were just discovered, probably part of our solar system:

http://phys.org/news/2015-12-discovery-large-outer-edges-solar.html

[...]

Keep in mind though, that those were relatively short observations, which means that their data could be off.

On some Croatian forum discussion and in one article, largest probability has been given to option 1: TNO.
Regarding the super-Earth - Alpha Centauri is 42° off the ecliptic which is too much (by usual astronomical assessment) for some planet (even Sedna is "only" 12° off the ecliptic).
Regarding the brown dwarf - it is expected to radiate in infra-red region which was not observed so far.


edit: The lack of infra-red radiation signature is the reason for "... We exclude that source to be a sub-/stellar member of the α Centauri system, ..."

 

[Cosmos]

I have a question.

In "Chapter 18: Comets or asteroids?" on the end of page 82 it says:

This would explain why usually asteroids are not in glowing mode, as is the case with asteroids in stationary clouds, asteroids following a circular orbit around the Sun, and asteroids located in the belt between Mars and Jupiter.

What is a stationary cloud in the above quote? I can't find a translation of it in german nor a description of the term in english.

 

[Palinurus]

My guess would be that the Kuiper Belt is meant here. FWIW.

 

[Mal7]

What is a stationary cloud in the above quote?

I think comets in a stationary cloud refers to those not presently in any kind of orbit within our solar system, but further out in interstellar space. Along with comets, these clouds contain dust and gas. They may have been produced from past super-novae.

Periodically our solar system may pass through one of these clouds, and some of the comets may be captured, entering into orbits around our Sun. [See e.g. Clube & Napier, The Cosmic Serpent, pages 48-49.]

 

[mkrnhr]

This would explain why usually asteroids are not in glowing mode, as is the case with asteroids in stationary clouds, asteroids following a circular orbit around the Sun, and asteroids located in the belt between Mars and Jupiter.

What is a stationary cloud in the above quote? I can't find a translation of it in german nor a description of the term in english.

The rest of the sentence explains what it is. It applies to the asteroid belt, Kuiper belt etc. and also to the Trojans. Maybe "circumstellar disc" (zirkumstellare Scheibe ?) would work?