If the Sun is indeed in a z-pinch from a Birkeland Current, what happens when a big planet approaches. It seems to me that the big planet would get some of the same current that the Sun gets, well before they approach each other. So I see the dynamics of the interaction controlled by the Birkeland Current. In that both bodies would become in the one current and not be able to move out of this current, and thus they would move closer to each other basically along the direction of this Birkeland Current. Maybe in a spiral and this would assist in the process of the big planet getting in orbit around the Sun.
So we would have Saturn coming in with a very elliptical orbit and interactions reducing that elliptical orbit until it ends up somewhere near it's present orbit. Then the story would be about Earth leaving Saturn and going into an elliptical orbit which I have gone into previously.
I don't know whether this actually happened but the theory is interesting. Mo
celeste
Re: Saturn System Breakup 5,000 Years Ago
Llyod, Here's what I think happened. Start with our planets orbiting the sun in a plane, as they do now. Bring our solar system into another field, and it will string the planets in a line, along their direction of travel. This is like what happened to comet SL9 in Jupiter's field, from your first post. So we have all the planets spinning and traveling down the same axis. When Saturn spirals in to it's position in front of the sun, the current stream to the sun is suddenly (not gradually) diverted to Saturn , causing the "Saturn flare". This increase of current causes Saturn to fission, forming a new planet. As Donald Scott would tell you, the fissioning doesn't just leave Saturn and it's offspring drifting apart, or even thrown off tangentially like they would in the case of gravitational forces. The two planets repel each other, and spiral widely around that original axis. The sun and other planets move up through the center. So it's not that Saturn drifts IN to it's present position, but rather (from the sun's perspective) moves out and down to it's present orbit. As the sun leaves the external field, planets return to their coplanar orbits around our current filament. What's nice here is that by merely bringing the planets into line with Saturn leading ,then the flare, the fissioning,and the drift of Saturn out to it's present orbit, all proceed logically in the order they were observed to happen.
celeste
Re: Saturn System Breakup 5,000 Years Ago
My last post does not imply that Saturn was not originally captured from outside our solar system. One way to bring the planets into the position of traveling in a line, is to bring our solar system to z-pinch with another filament. Near z-pinch is also the best time to capture an object spiraling widely around the other filament. Remember that if the other filament is spiraling around ours, it's plane is at an angle to ours. Meaning any object captured from the other filament is going to be coming in at an angle inclined to our orbital plane. Moses, You had it mostly right. The Birkeland current does control the dynamics, and the big planet does move into the sun's current. It's just that there is nothing gradual about the diversion of current to the planet.
celeste
Re: Saturn System Breakup 5,000 Years Ago
The Saturn crescent is the clue to what was happening. If Saturn was giving off light as a sun, could it form a crescent? No,we should only see the full circle. It is only an object that reflects light that shows phases. But for an object to show a thin crescent of reflected light, the light source must be even farther away than the object it lights. So our sun lighting Saturn still would not form a crescent on Saturn. So how do we solve this? If we think of the planets strung out in a line, along some current filament, a planet between us and Saturn could block out all of the light (like a total eclipse), or leave a ring (annular eclipse). If, however, we take that filament and curve it, then we could have a crescent of Saturn (as a sun), appearing from behind some eclipsing planet. What I propose, is we had Saturn as a sun out front, curving around right behind was some planet (Jupiter?). That planet was only visible to us in that it blocked light from Saturn. Then the Venus Mars pair following behind them. The fact that we could see the face of Venus and Mars means there must have still been light coming from the Sun behind us. This last point is sometimes missed. Saturn as a sun could not light he face of Venus or Mars from our perspective.
Lloyd
Re: Saturn System Breakup 5,000 Years Ago
Celeste, I might be able to understand your idea, if you could show a few diagrams.
Llyod, see the thread "Full Mars in Crescent Saturn?" thread. That replaces my last post in this thread. See, I realized that having a a full Mars, in front of a crescent Saturn was an impossibility, so I reasoned that something must have been blocking some of Saturn's light. But then I went back to watch Talbott's alien sky video and the correct solution hit me. Consider this for one second. Talbott showed that we had day and night cycles on Earth, even during the planetary polar alignment. But the sun (or other source of daylight) could NOT be at the poles. If it was, we would not have day and night cycles. We would have one of earth's hemisphere in constant daylight, the other in constant night. Then I looked closer at Talbott's pictures, and realized his day/night cycles on earth, matched the phases of Saturn if the source of light was the same for both.
promethean
Re: Saturn System Breakup 5,000 Years Ago
Was the Sun the "other star in the other current"? Is that how 2 systems were merged, drawn together by the Z-pinch ?
celeste
Re: Saturn System Breakup 5,000 Years Ago
promethean wrote: Was the Sun the "other star in the other current"? Is that how 2 systems were merged, drawn together by the Z-pinch ?
If it is true that stars and their planets travel along current filaments, then: http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/01 ... chapter-7/ implies one star can pull planets from another star near z-pinch, or two star systems can totally merge if a third filament is present. Those cross sections of three current filaments, shown in section 7.1, can describe galactic scale currents ,just as well as laboratory scale currents.
tayga
The Golden Age and concepts of colour
I am currently watching "Remembering The End Of The World" and have started to wonder why the Golden Age was so named.
Is it just that gold represents excellence, the best?
Or is there any possible association with the actual colour of things during that era? I ask simply because I have in my mind the notion, mentioned by others, of Earth existing within the atmosphere of Saturn as a brown dwarf.
The thought also reminded me of discussions there have been on these boards regarding the colour spectrum sensitivity of the human eye and a fact I remember from an episode of QI which discussed the Ancient Greeks' descriptions of colour, described here:
To billions of people under 30 years of age, the sun has always been blindingly white, but older people remember the days of warm yellow sunshine." ... "What's more, when an Internet image search is performed for "yellow sun," "yellow sunshine," or "yellow sunlight," only drawings, cartoons or photos of sunsets appear in the results. Highly suspicious, indeed." ... "A hotter, brighter, whiter sun with more glare is now observed by the public, but why deny that the sun used to be yellow?" ... http://www.californiality.com/2012/07/y ... e-sun.html
If the level of the ionosphere is lower now (I assume due to the lowered level of activity of the sun), then wouldn't that mean that the atmosphere is thinner? i mean "thinner" as a bed sheet is thinner than a blanket or comforter, not thinner as in fewer molecules per square meter.
And don't the characteristics of the atmosphere (thickness, amount of particulates in it, nature and combination of gases in it, etc.), as well as the angle of the sun's rays, determine what color we perceive things to be? We say that lots of particulates in the air (such as come from volcanoes or from grass fires) will lead to sunsets' appearing more red.
Or contrast what sunlight looks like in photos taken on the moon or the ISS. The sky itself is black, and you usually don't see stars in the sky in general photos. Of course, if they're taking photos of the stars themselves, they can make plenty of them show up.
I also think that our indoor lifestyle these days makes us feel like the sunlight is overly harsh and bright whenever we finally do step outside. If some do sunburn faster than before, I would be inclined to blame it on a lack of sufficient vitamin D in our bodies. Most people have suboptimal levels of D in their system. If you have enough, then you won't burn as fast.
Another aspect of our indoor lifestyle is that most of us spend the majority of our time viewing images on monitors. The light coming from monitors won't be nearly as bright as sunlight. Think of this: It's no problem to read the image on your cell phone indoors, but it's very hard to read it outdoors in the sunlight. The cell phone's image is not bright enough to compete with sunlight.
Finally, I would tend to believe that the sun is actually WEAKER than it was before 2008, when there was a "sharp drop in the magnetic index". I think it's just our collective perception of the sunlight that has changed and makes it seem more harsh and bright.
I will admit that whenever I step out into the bright summer sun at midday, it does seem to feel stronger. i describe it as feeling like an ant being burned under the intense focus of a magnifying glass. But doesn't that go along with the idea of a lower (or thinner) atmosphere? The curve of the outer atmosphere would be functionally smaller if the atmosphere is thinner, wouldn't it?
I haven't thought of the chemtrail idea as being very valid, but I think I did experience them some months ago, when a VIP came to town, and the day before there were crisscrossed clouds high above town (but not above the entire sky) the evening before the VIP's arrival, and then the day of his arrival, there was an extraordinarily low cloud ceiling over the town (but not above the entire sky), with no threat of rain. The low cloud ceiling lasted a couple days, then the sky cleared out to its normal crystal clarity.
I would not blame chemtrails for a brighter-seeming sun. Since they block sunlight, I would say they have a cooling effect.
nick c
Re: The Golden Age and concepts of colour
pavlink and Elecgeekmom, You have misunderstood the subject of the original post. Tayga was referencing the hypothesized events that took place in prehistory, in the context of the Saturn theory. Whether the Sun is brighter or has changed in the last 50 years is a topic for debate in another therad and really has nothing to do with this thread.
tayga
Re: The Golden Age and concepts of colour
nick c wrote: pavlink and Elecgeekmom, You have misunderstood the subject of the original post. Tayga was referencing the hypothesized events that took place in prehistory, in the context of the Saturn theory. Whether the Sun is brighter or has changed in the last 50 years is a topic for debate in another therad and really has nothing to do with this thread.
Thanks, Nick. That's exactly right.
promethean
Re: The Golden Age and concepts of colour
I recall a Roger Westcott article in KRONOS ( Vol.X no.1 ? ) that claimed an "aural glow" of perpetual summertime... ...I think that was part of "Aster & Disaster" but don't trust my memory
tayga
Re: The Golden Age and concepts of colour
promethean wrote: I recall a Roger Westcott article in KRONOS ( Vol.X no.1 ? ) that claimed an "aural glow" of perpetual summertime... ...I think that was part of "Aster & Disaster" but don't trust my memory
Thanks Promethean, memory can be tenuous, can't it?
A perpetual "Aural Glow" sounds like the literal nature of the Golden Age I was alluding to. Do you have any feeling for whether that was/is a widely-held notion or peculiar to Roger Westcott?
...I think that was part of "Aster & Disaster" but don't trust my memory
