Earth Changes and the Human-Cosmic Connection

Woodsman

The Living Force
I still need help with the point raised in my earlier post; I don't want it to get lost in the shuffle.

I've got a meeting coming up in the next couple of days and I want my ducks in a row.
 

hlat

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
I recently found myself in discussion with some strident climate change activists, and realized that my brain had gone soft. I was fact-lite, as it were, helplessly saying useless things which essentially boiled down to, “I don’t buy it because.., plasma.”
Sorry I don't have anything citing the book.

My understanding is that the main driver of temperature is the sun's output, which goes in long cycles. So there is climate change, but it's not determined by humans.

Plants need a relatively high threshold of carbon dioxide, and below that level they die. Some crazy proposals want to lower carbon dioxide below the level that plants need.

Around 50 years ago all the rage in the mainstream media was global cooling, complete with magazine covers.

Finally, why argue with them? They have free will, so you'd need to be invited by them to change their mind or show evidence that they're not aware of. Otherwise, it seems you would be infringing on their free will to be believe false ideas.
 

Woodsman

The Living Force
Sorry I don't have anything citing the book.

My understanding is that the main driver of temperature is the sun's output, which goes in long cycles. So there is climate change, but it's not determined by humans.

Plants need a relatively high threshold of carbon dioxide, and below that level they die. Some crazy proposals want to lower carbon dioxide below the level that plants need.

Around 50 years ago all the rage in the mainstream media was global cooling, complete with magazine covers.

Finally, why argue with them? They have free will, so you'd need to be invited by them to change their mind or show evidence that they're not aware of. Otherwise, it seems you would be infringing on their free will to be believe false ideas.

It's a complicated property management issue. People with pull and money are in the process of making decisions which are going to affect me and my community based on the CO2 global warming hypothesis. I have real, material stakes in the debate beyond simple philosophy. I don't see any real change of course, but I hope to be able to at least explain my position to a point where, even if people don't agree with me, they will at least pause and think, "Well, he's not a simple stubborn denier (who can be easily written off and ostracized). He seems reasonable and interesting and we like him so.., maybe we shouldn't just burn him at the stake."

I'm trying to avoid being mobbed, basically. I'm not willing to lie just to get along, but then it is incumbent on me to actually know what the hell I'm talking about.
 

Chad

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
It's a complicated property management issue. People with pull and money are in the process of making decisions which are going to affect me and my community based on the CO2 global warming hypothesis. I have real, material stakes in the debate beyond simple philosophy. I don't see any real change of course, but I hope to be able to at least explain my position to a point where, even if people don't agree with me, they will at least pause and think, "Well, he's not a simple stubborn denier (who can be easily written off and ostracized). He seems reasonable and interesting and we like him so.., maybe we shouldn't just burn him at the stake."

I'm trying to avoid being mobbed, basically. I'm not willing to lie just to get along, but then it is incumbent on me to actually know what the hell I'm talking about.

Hey Woodsman, FWIW, and i hope i have understand your situation correctly. Just going off what you've said, if it was me in that situation, i would probably stick to the basics, be general, pose more questions and concerns that don't add up, rather than coming across as though i know all the science behind it - i'm not saying that you're doing that, that's just how i might approach it.

I might discuss the many scientists, institutions, mainstream media outlets and personalities, and even entire countries and their governments (that would appeal to them) that question the CO2 agenda and its solutions; how climate is cyclical; that CO2 has flucatuated throughout history and that while it seems to correlate perhaps it's not a direct cause for these changes in climate; how global warming is no longer just about 'warming' but has been rebranded as a 'climate crisis' so clearly there's still some figuring out to be done; how it would seem that a number of their predictions from 20 years ago haven't come to pass and how perilous it is to invest our futures in a theory that has yet to be proven, and how current attempts to harness 'green' energy aren't green at all and have led to power cuts, rare earth metal mining; how more CO2 in a greenhouse leads to better growth of plants; perhaps concerns about fuel poverty and how old people are dying because they can't heat their homes in winter would appeal too.

Those are just some things off the top of my head. I guess there are a number of other areas you could cover that aren't too technical - i'm thinking about your plasma comment - but do appeal to their lived experiences, humanity, their basic knowledge of history, it also helps that most of these points can be found in their mainstream sphere of information.

As i say, those are just some thoughts based on what you've said above, but maybe you are able or would like to approach the discussion differently. However, in my experience, when talking to the average person about these kinds of things, becoming too technical can be too confusing, and if you do stumble because of gaps in knowledge this may be used against you.

Posing questions and letting people do the thinking means they're also often less defensive. Plus, i think even climate scientists that accept global cooling/sun driven climate stuff, etc... don't know exactly how everything works.
 

Woodsman

The Living Force
Hey Woodsman, FWIW, and i hope i have understand your situation correctly. Just going off what you've said, if it was me in that situation, i would probably stick to the basics, be general, pose more questions and concerns that don't add up, rather than coming across as though i know all the science behind it - i'm not saying that you're doing that, that's just how i might approach it.

I might discuss the many scientists, institutions, mainstream media outlets and personalities, and even entire countries and their governments (that would appeal to them) that question the CO2 agenda and its solutions; how climate is cyclical; that CO2 has flucatuated throughout history and that while it seems to correlate perhaps it's not a direct cause for these changes in climate; how global warming is no longer just about 'warming' but has been rebranded as a 'climate crisis' so clearly there's still some figuring out to be done; how it would seem that a number of their predictions from 20 years ago haven't come to pass and how perilous it is to invest our futures in a theory that has yet to be proven, and how current attempts to harness 'green' energy aren't green at all and have led to power cuts, rare earth metal mining; how more CO2 in a greenhouse leads to better growth of plants; perhaps concerns about fuel poverty and how old people are dying because they can't heat their homes in winter would appeal too.

Those are just some things off the top of my head. I guess there are a number of other areas you could cover that aren't too technical - i'm thinking about your plasma comment - but do appeal to their lived experiences, humanity, their basic knowledge of history, it also helps that most of these points can be found in their mainstream sphere of information.

As i say, those are just some thoughts based on what you've said above, but maybe you are able or would like to approach the discussion differently. However, in my experience, when talking to the average person about these kinds of things, becoming too technical can be too confusing, and if you do stumble because of gaps in knowledge this may be used against you.

Posing questions and letting people do the thinking means they're also often less defensive. Plus, i think even climate scientists that accept global cooling/sun driven climate stuff, etc... don't know exactly how everything works.

Those are some good bits of advice; "Keep it relatable."

Part of the problem is I've "outsourced" too much of my live knowledge to the internet and books. I can't quote facts or figures with confidence. Even living without a smartphone, I've gone soft. Or perhaps I always was; I've never been great at recalling precise details in person.

Either way, I'm cramming right now. It's pretty humbling to recognize, but it also serves as a good wake-up call to get my act together.
 

Woodsman

The Living Force
Man, reading books is SO good for the brain!

-Especially reading with an objective in mind; to be able to explain complicated ideas in an interesting and engaging way. I'm actually getting excited about sharing this stuff. -And I think that may be part of the solution; to not approach a debate in a guarded/offensive manner, but rather as an opportunity to share excitement about a cool idea with friends.

Describing a mono-polar motor is easy to do, and then explaining the brief particulars of Birkeland Currents and how the Auroras on the North and South Poles are basically the ends where current from the Sun connect. -Like how they touch to the glass in those plasma ball curiosity gadgets at the gift store? I was talking a bit about it today as I crunched through the problem at a cafe, and eyes lit up as the idea became clear: "Ahhhh!" -Then I added a few more notes about electrical phenomena in the Solar System, essentially introducing reasonable doubt into the CO2 hypothesis in a sideways manner which wasn't aggressive or wall-building. The point being, I wasn't trying to introduce reasonable doubt; I was simply excited about just sharing the idea.

Anyway, we'll see how it all goes.
 

Pierre

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Explaining that electromagnetic force, being 10 to the 39th power stronger than the force of gravity, and explaining how the effect doesn’t diminish with the square of distance the way gravity does.., why, that’s a fantastic step toward providing a common dawning of realization for anybody new to these ideas, which in turn opens up new possibilities in understanding.

But... In trying to figure out an effective way to explain this, or perhaps even demonstrate it, I found myself wondering why it is that we do not see this reality reflected every day metal objects. That is, if I throw my keys into the air, why do they not fly off to the North Pole?

What am I missing?

Here is the relevant excerpt:

As we’ve seen above, according to mainstream science gravity is the main force controlling the behavior of celestial bodies. Usually, electromagnetic forces are considered nonexistent or negligible at best. However, electromagnetic forces are stronger than gravitational forces by a magnitude of 1039 (i.e. not 39 times stronger, but 1-followed-by-39-zeros times stronger), making electromagnetism the de facto ‘driving force’ in our universe.

The comparative strength of gravity and electricity was illustrated by the oil drop experiment designed by Robert Millikan[1], winner of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1923 (see diagram below). Millikan demonstrated that an oil drop charged with only one electron (thanks to X-ray ionization) can be lifted up when exposed to a strong electric field.[2] Thus, the electromagnetic force exerted on one single electron can overcome the gravitational pull exerted by the whole planet on the oil droplet.



1582634393209.png



Schematic diagram of Millikan's experiment. The electric pull-up of one single electron balances the phenomenally weak (relatively speaking) gravitational force exerted by the whole planet on the oil drop. (© Theresa Knott)

To be precise, Millikan’s pulverized oil droplets are much smaller than oil drops. Typically a droplet is 0.1 microns in radius[3] while a drop is about 1,000 microns (1 millimeter). Since there are about 1021 atoms in one single drop of water,[4] one droplet contains roughly 1017 atoms. So Millikan showed that the electromagnetic force exerted by one single electron could counteract the weight (i.e. the gravitational force) of 1017 atoms.

The prevalence of electromagnetic magnetic forces over gravity is even more striking when distance increases:

The strength of the magnetic field produced by an electric current (e.g., a cosmic-sized Birkeland current) 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. [5]


[1] ‘Robert Milikan – Biographical’, Nobel Prize.
See : www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1923/millikan-bio.html

[2] For a droplet to levitate, the electric field has to be 32,100 volts. For more explanations see Chapter 26: ‘Hurricanes, lightning and tornadoes’.

[3] Harrison, R. G.; ‘Atmospheric Electricity And Cloud Microphysics’, p.3

[4] ‘How many atoms are in a single drop of water’, MadSci : Chemistry.
See: www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2000-10/971190308.Ch.r.html

[5] Scott, D.E., The Electric Sky, p.44


The levitation of the oil droplet is possible if the electric field it is subjected to is equal or greater than 32,100 Volts (over a few centimeters).

it's different if you throw your keys in the air:
1/ The atmospheric e-field is only about 100 V/m
2/ Unlike the electrically charged droplet (one electron), the keys are not electrically charged.


 

Woodsman

The Living Force
Here is the relevant excerpt:




The levitation of the oil droplet is possible if the electric field it is subjected to is equal or greater than 32,100 Volts (over a few centimeters).

it's different if you throw your keys in the air:
1/ The atmospheric e-field is only about 100 V/m
2/ Unlike the electrically charged droplet (one electron), the keys are not electrically charged.
Thank-you, Pierre.
 

Chad

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Man, reading books is SO good for the brain!

-Especially reading with an objective in mind; to be able to explain complicated ideas in an interesting and engaging way. I'm actually getting excited about sharing this stuff. -And I think that may be part of the solution; to not approach a debate in a guarded/offensive manner, but rather as an opportunity to share excitement about a cool idea with friends.

Describing a mono-polar motor is easy to do, and then explaining the brief particulars of Birkeland Currents and how the Auroras on the North and South Poles are basically the ends where current from the Sun connect. -Like how they touch to the glass in those plasma ball curiosity gadgets at the gift store? I was talking a bit about it today as I crunched through the problem at a cafe, and eyes lit up as the idea became clear: "Ahhhh!" -Then I added a few more notes about electrical phenomena in the Solar System, essentially introducing reasonable doubt into the CO2 hypothesis in a sideways manner which wasn't aggressive or wall-building. The point being, I wasn't trying to introduce reasonable doubt; I was simply excited about just sharing the idea.

Anyway, we'll see how it all goes.

What i've bolded above is clear enough to me, and i think it's a good example and should hopefully at least capture the imaginations of some of them. However, for those less familiar with the topic overall i can't say for sure they'll still grasp it - the gaps in knowledge of people can surprise us! Still, you can give it a go and have other things on reserve just in case.

Anyway, since you said this meeting is coming up very soon, good luck! Let us know how you get on.
 

lostinself

Jedi Master
It's a complicated property management issue. People with pull and money are in the process of making decisions which are going to affect me and my community based on the CO2 global warming hypothesis. I have real, material stakes in the debate beyond simple philosophy. I don't see any real change of course, but I hope to be able to at least explain my position to a point where, even if people don't agree with me, they will at least pause and think, "Well, he's not a simple stubborn denier (who can be easily written off and ostracized). He seems reasonable and interesting and we like him so.., maybe we shouldn't just burn him at the stake."

I'm trying to avoid being mobbed, basically. I'm not willing to lie just to get along, but then it is incumbent on me to actually know what the hell I'm talking about.

It wouldn't harm to quote actual science papers casting serious doubts on AGW theories. Here is a long list. You could even print a hand-out with titles and links, although here i'm not sure if it doesn't make you more a GW denialist in your audience' minds (mentioning politics likewise). If you're going to give a talk, make sure you're confident about what you present, and be prepared for (silly) questions, or it may backfire, OSIT.
 

Woodsman

The Living Force
Good grief!

I hadn't kept up to date on the various threads, and here I was asking Pierre for advice while he was going through a medical valley of shadows. And he still put in the time nonetheless to answer my questions. I'm an ass.

I apologize for not being a great deal more considerate!

I'm very happy to hear that you came out the other end of your personal struggle whole! Thank-you, again, sir for all your inspirational efforts.
 

Anthony

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
I was thinking about Pierre's book and the recent earthquake activity, or more specifically the one that hit Zagreb recently. I don't remember if this was covered in the book, but since there is a weakening of the surface and core E-field of our planet (because of the reduced solar activity) wouldn't that make even less powerful eartquakes more destructive, given all the loosening and opening up the planet that is already taking place?
 

Persej

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
I was thinking about Pierre's book and the recent earthquake activity, or more specifically the one that hit Zagreb recently. I don't remember if this was covered in the book, but since there is a weakening of the surface and core E-field of our planet (because of the reduced solar activity) wouldn't that make even less powerful eartquakes more destructive, given all the loosening and opening up the planet that is already taking place?

Earthquake that hit Zagreb (5.3 magnitude) was close to the city (7 km) and shallow (10 km). I think that explains why it produced so much damage. I don't see why would less powerful earthquakes be more destructive because of the reduced solar activity. I would say that what happened in Zagreb corresponds with the general knowledge about earthquakes.

While shaking is driven by the seismic energy released by an earthquake, earthquakes differ in how much of their energy is radiated as seismic waves. Deeper earthquakes also have less interaction with the surface, and their energy is spread out across a larger area. Shaking intensity is localized, generally diminishing with distance from the earthquake's epicenter, but can be amplified in sedimentary basins and certain kinds of unconsolidated soils.
 

Approaching Infinity

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Heads up that there is now a cheaper, black-and-white edition of ECHCC available on Amazon:

 

Mari

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
I just encountered interesting research; not much info in English so I´ll summarise all I have.

Here is an automatic translation of the article:

What the analyzes of the teeth of the ancient inhabitants of the central Balkans showed

17:55 December 21, 2021
Review of the prehistoric community - Sputnik Srbija, 1920, 21.12.2021

CC BY 3.0 / /

In an interesting study, Serbian and foreign scientists used the method of annulment of tartar on the teeth of individuals from the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods to examine physiological stress before and during the Neolithic demographic transition in Europe. What did they learn from that? And why does this matter?

Abrogation dental cement ( Tooth cementum annulation ) the microscopic method, which is mainly used for determining the age of the individual. The results obtained by applying this method are closest to the actual (chronological) age of the individual.

Scientists cut the remains of the teeth with a diamond saw, make a small section and look at the plate under a microscope. Here they can see the so-called lines of annulment, because every year the tooth gets one layer of dental cement . It is the same as with rings on a tree. Counting those lines, we can say how old someone was at the time of death. This method is also used in forensics and is very accurate.

However, by observing these lines on the teeth, scientists can also see the physiological stress that occurred during a certain period of a woman's or man's life. Physiologically demanding events such as pregnancy and lactation are known to have multiple effects on the skeleton, such as significantly altered bone metabolic status.

The study used the method of dental cement annihilation (TCA) to examine physiological stress before and during the Neolithic demographic transition in Europe. Episodes of physiological stress are reflected as "stress lines" in tooth cementum at almost annual resolution.

The TCA method was used to detect and count stress events for a sample of 21 Mesolithic and 25 Neolithic individuals from the central Balkans between 9,500 and 5,400 BC. In line with the theory of Neolithic demographic transition, scientists assume that Neolithic individuals will have more stress than Mesolithic individuals.

The results suggest that Neolithic women had significantly more stress lines in tooth cementum per year than Mesolithic women. The difference between Mesolithic and Neolithic men was not statistically significant.

The conclusion is that Neolithic women had more episodes of physiological stress than Mesolithic women. The differential pattern between the sexes, combined with the fact that pregnancies are one of the main causes of the formation of stress lines in tooth cementum, may indicate that the observed differences are mainly due to increased fertility in the Neolithic.

Why is the Neolithic demographic transition important?​

At the time of the beginning of the Mesolithic, there are climate changes - the retreat of glaciers, an increase in the lushness of vegetation, new species - the previous living conditions are changing. The Mesolithic is known as the Older, and the Neolithic as the Younger Stone Age within prehistory. With the Neolithic comes the aforementioned demographic expansion - scientists believe that more children are born then than before.

The first demographic transition in human (pre) history occurred in the Neolithic period when the global size of the population increased dramatically. This is a period of change from the way of life of hunters-gatherers-fishermen to food production, animal husbandry and animal husbandry that took place in the early Holocene and represents the transition from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic period in Europe. It is assumed that the flourishing of the Neolithic population was caused by the increase in women's fertility due to a sedentary lifestyle and the availability of high-calorie food.

Support for this hypothesis comes from the observed increase in the share of subadult individuals (child skeletons and burials) in Neolithic prehistory around the world as an indirect measure of fertility. It is also assumed that increased population size and density, combined with new lifestyles (changes in diet, increased labor demands, sedentary lifestyle, proximity to domestic animals and poor hygiene conditions increase the likelihood of various infections) have resulted in an overall decline in health .

Together, the increase in fertility and the decline in health that resulted in increased mortality are the two main processes that define and structure the Neolithic demographic transition. Both increased fertility and increased mortality should be reflected in bioarchaeological records as an increase in various types of biological stress. However, so far there has been no direct or independent evidence.

What did the scientists and collaborators conclude in their work?​

"Our results support the hypothesis of increased physiological stress in the population of prehistoric farmers. The differential pattern between the sexes can be conditionally interpreted as evidence for the increase in female fertility in the Neolithic period - that the increase in the number of births was the main (but not the only) contribution to increasing stress during the Neolithic transition, "said Kristina Penezic. her associates.

If this interpretation is correct, the research states, the results would provide direct empirical evidence in favor of the general theory of demographic transition in agriculture, where increasing fertility is assumed to be the main driver of population expansion in agriculture.
"The method we used has a wide bioarchaeological potential, because it allows researchers to gain a more direct insight into physiological stress in past populations. Perhaps the greatest potential methods of researching series paleodemografskih and social issues that include birth and motherhood, but this time interpretation requires further methodological research to formulate criteria for distinguishing pregnancy from other causes of stress, "the statement of reasons, transfers National Geography.

So, basically, we have physical evidence of the stress, which is caused in fact by Venus' passage through the solar system, while archeologists claim it was pregnancies and food etc. But the root cause is Venus - so cosmic cataclysmic events.


Here is study from last year in english: Stressful times for women - Increased physiological stress in Neolithic females detected in tooth cementum

Then this year January: https://www.researchgate.net/public...ube_Gorges_Data_from_dental_calculus_analysis

And then final from October: Tooth cementum annulation: Confounding difficulties remain when inferring life history parameters from archeological tooth samples
 
Top Bottom