"life is a borrowed time" we all know that. That's why we live our life to the fullest, some says that or I could say that most people believe that the world will end in Dec. 21, 2012. This myth recalls back from the ancient Mayans where their calendar ended in the year 2012 which is this year. The Mayan predicted that the world will end exactly December 21, 2012. Creepy isn't it? the world we know will be fallen into ashes and it will not sustain life on earth. Some also disagrees with this theory and say that the world will not end in 2012 and does makes commoners confused of what's really true. If you are one of the confused I will give you some cool facts that could possibly end the world in 2012. This is not to make you panic or to be afraid. There's nothing wrong in believing that the world will end in 2012. It is our responsibility to prepare in this particular event. Prepare ourselves so that we are prepare to face our heavenly creator. Well so much for that here are some facts that promised.
Pole Shift (magnetic): A shift in “magnetic” poles
is one of the more common and accepted theories across the world,
however, this is not to be confused with those that speak of a
“geographic” pole shift.
Even though these events can occur at the same time, they actually have
quite different affects on Earth. Because of this, we will address
these events separately as a “magnetic” pole shift and a
“geographic” pole shift.
Scientists have now concluded that Earth’s “magnet” poles do flip 180
degrees in what’s commonly called a “pole shift”. There are many
theories as to the frequency of the shifts in magnetic poles which range
anywhere from 10,000 years to almost 800,000 years.
Research into these magnetic reversal events has come through
analysis and measurement of the magnetic fields of rock that are located
on the surface and within Earth's crust. Their measurements show that
the magnetic field of some rock are exactly the opposite of the current
magnetic poles. By carbon dating these rocks, scientists have attempted
to determine when the last magnetic pole shift may have occurred.
The commonly accepted theory is that Earth's electromagnetic field,
as well as the magnetic North and South Poles are created from either
the spinning of Earth's core or the mantle (hot molten lava) under
Earth's crust. This means that the direction and speed of the spinning
magma are directly responsible for the position of the magnetic North
and South Poles, as well as the strength of Earth's electromagnetic
field.
This also means that a magnetic pole flip requires the magnetic field
of Earth to become opposite in relationship to the Earth's crust. In
other words, either the magnetic poles move 180 degrees while Earth's
crust remains in the same position or Earth's crust moves 180 degrees
while the magnetic poles remain in the same position. One of these two
events must have occurred in order to support the evidence of a magnetic
pole shift in Earth's past history.
Scientists claim to have proven Earth's magnetic poles have reverse
position in past history by measuring the direction of the magnetic
fields in rock strata running opposite to the current magnetic poles.
Since Earth's magnetic poles are created by the spinning magma under
Earth's crust, then at some point in past history, the magma must have
been spinning in the opposite direction in relationship to Earth's
crust. There are two theories to consider how the magma-crust magnetic
relationship might reverse.
Both theories methods are based on the
Earth Crust Displacement Theory
of the late history professor Charles H. Hapgood. According to
Hapgood's theory, Earth's crust acts like a solid disk that can slide
over the more liquid characteristics of the mantle (hot molten lava)
under the crust. Although we consider Earth's crust to be an unmovable
solid mass, in reality the crust is a rigid mass, between 10 - 30 miles
thick, floating over the more viscus magma under the crust.
In order for Hapgood's theory to explain a magnetic pole shift event,
one of two events must occur. First, Earth's crust slides over the
mantle until the crust rotates 180 degrees from its current position,
then stabilizing in the new position. This would basically flip the
geographic positions of the Arctic and Antarctic while the mantle under
the crust maintained it's current rotation. Second, Earth's crust
remains stationary while the mantle slides underneath the crust until it
rotates 180 degrees from its current position, then stabilizing in the
new position. In this second method, the geographic positions of of the
poles would remain the same, however the spinning magma would have
flipped over and now rotate in the opposite direction.
It's important to note that in either case of Earth Crust
Displacement, reversing Earth's magnetic field means that the magma
would be spinning in the opposite direction in relationship to Earth's
crust. Since the direction of rotation in Earth's crust is directly
related to the direction of spinning magma, this also means the crust
would have to reverse its direction of rotation to realign with the
direction of spinning magma. In other words, Earth's crust would need
to reverse rotation from East-West to West-East.
Therefore, if a magnetic pole shift were to occur rapidly, then
Earth's crust would also reverse rotational directions rapidly. The
result would be massive displacement of Earth's crust and oceans.
Any sudden movement in Earth’s rotation will result in the oceans
moving in the opposite directions until the oceans reach a new
equilibrium. If Earth's crust reverses rotation from the west/east
direction to the west/east direction, this would result in a wall of
water moving towards every western shoreline on the planet.
People standing on the surface of Earth don’t feel it and often
don’t even realize that Earth's rotation means the surface, and
everything on it, is moving constantly. Earth’s circumference at the
equator is approximately 40,000km and makes one full rotation in every
24 hours. This means that the surface of Earth is in constant motion
and traveling at an average ground speed of approximately 1,667 km/hr
(1,035 mi/hr) at the equator. Of course these ground speeds are reduced
significantly as you move away from the equator. When you imagine
Earth’s crust slowing down abruptly and eventually coming to a stop,
you can begin to see the potential for a disaster of cataclysmic
proportions.
Ancient cultures describe a period of three days where the Sun does
not rise or set. This could mean the process of Earth's crust slowing
down and reversing direction. Even if the slowdown is somewhat gradual,
there is still the pure physics of so much mass in motion. Have you
ever seen anything traveling at 1,667 km/hr slow down quickly? Probably
not since most man-made objects can’t travel that fast. Even the speed
of sound is only about 1,230 km/hr (761 mi/hr). In other words, this
would be even more dramatic than trying to quickly slow down a jet
traveling at Mach1.
This centrifugal force created by this rotation produce an
equilibrium or balance between the borders of water and land. In other
words, the oceans are being held in position by the gravitational and
centrifugal created by Earth’s rotation.
From the above explanation, one can begin to realize how a 180 degree
magnetic pole shift would result in Earth's crust actually stopping
rotation and then reversing direction. Although this has been
referenced in ancient literature, it is an event that few can imagine
and one which most scientists would claim is impossible. However, if it
does occur, this means the centrifugal force on the surface of Earth
will go from 1670 kph to zero and then back up to 1670 kph in the
opposite direction.
Earth currently rotates west to east which means that the ocean is
being naturally pulled, by centrifugal forces, towards every east
coastline and away from every west coastline. If Earth's crust were
simply to stop rotation, the oceans would immediately inundate every
western coastal area and would create new coastlines several hundred
miles inland from their current positions. And yes, the tsunami from
that event alone would be cataclysmic and of biblical proportions.
If the
Earth Crust Displacement Theory
is correct, then Earth's crust would stop rotation and then start
rotating in the opposite direction or in the east to west direction.
This would cause the oceans to move further inland on the western
shores and create new coastlines which are even further inland again.
Both the stopping and reversing actions will create massive tsunamis as
they move inland on all western coastlines.
This theory also explains why the Western U.S. and Western Europe are
mostly under water on the future world maps. This also provides a very
scientific understanding of why the Western U.S. has been under the
ocean several times, why there is a great salt lake nearly 1000 km from
the current west coast of the U.S., and how the Grand Canyon has been
created.
From this data, it can easily be seen that the deluge and flooding of
ancient literature and of the Western U.S. could be explained simply
by the reversal in rotation of Earth’s crust. This explanation does
not even consider any upward or downward movement in the Earth’s crust
due to the buckling of the crust in such an abrupt movement. Yet, there
is also proof that such buckling of Earth’s crust has occurred as
recently as 13,000 yrs ago. The affects on Earth from such an event
would be nothing less than cataclysmic.
If the Earth's crust reverses rotation, the forces on the crust would
be equal to the friction and rotational momentum of the semi liquid
mantle underneath the crust. The braking system for such an event would
be a combination of the friction between the crust and mantle along with
the buckling of the crust upon itself much like the folding action of
an accordion. The motion of the crust would eventually slowing down,
stop, and start moving in opposite direction. If there is any good news
to such an event, it would be that the initial cataclysmic affects in
the crust would probably only occur while the crust movement
decelerated.
Now imagine what would happen to Earth’s crust during such an event.
This gives a new meaning to the words “continental drift”. It gives
credence to the geological proof that
mountain ranges across the world have risen or fallen 3,000 to 8,000 meters
in a single event. It provides a theory as to why virtually all life on
Earth was eradicated during a past cataclysmic event. This could
explain the movement of erratics (house sized boulders) around the
world, the 30 meter cliffs along many coastlines, and angular sediment
layers that don’t conform to accepted geological theories. This could
also explain why there are sea shells on the top of mountains and cities
under the oceans.
Now imagine that you are a human on the surface of Earth when such an
event occurs. There you are standing outside and looking up at the sky
thinking “oh, what a glorious day”. Then all of the sudden, the ground
starts moving. Maybe it starts slowly, but either way, you can not keep
your footing or run to a safe location. Pretty soon, the ground under
your feet is moving faster until your feet are no longer even touching
the ground. Instead you are either being tossed across the ground like
tumbleweed or pinned against some physical object while being crushed by
objects flying through the air or by the pure force of air pressing
against your body.
The conventional dogma is that, during such an event, there would be
less gravity causing people, animals, and objects to float off the
planet. However, based on the above description of the
Earth Crust Displacement Theory,
it becomes evident that spinning magma under the crust continues to
spin and thereby maintaining Earth's gravitational field. Another fact
is that people from ancient cultures witnessed these events and lived
and remained on Earth to tell about it. If they would have witnessed
everything floating off the surface of Earth including: people, animals,
trees, rocks, water, etc. they probably would have mentioned it.
Many people are already aware that scientists have been tracking the
movement of the magnetic poles for decades. The below graph provides
scientific proof that the magnetic North and South Poles have been
moving for over 100 years and that the annual movement of the North
magnetic pole is becoming exponential. Although often described as a
normal anomaly that Earth goes through regularly, the fact is that this
movement is not normal or within any cyclical event that has been
witnessed or measured by modern science. Scientific and practical
theories suggest that this could be the beginning of Earth' s next
magnetic pole shift although the estimates on how long such a shift
might take is still only speculation.
From this graph, it can be seen that the North Magnetic Pole is
moving towards Russia while the South Magnetic Pole is moving towards
South America. Whether this is the beginning of a complete magnetic
pole shift or not will likely be disputed until the event actually
occurs, however, the above graph clearly shows the annual movement of
the north magnetic pole to be increasing exponentially. In addition,
the last year data has been made available on this pole movement is from
the year 2005. This suggests that there may be a reason why the
governments of the world are not releasing any data past 2005. Is it
possible the magnetic pole movement after 2005 would cause concern the
governments would rather avoid?
Something else worth mentioning and which may be significant is that
the North Magnetic Pole has moved (about 12 degrees latitude and 18
degrees longitude) which is farther than the South Magnetic Pole (about 8
degrees latitude and 10 degrees longitude) during the same period of
time. Could the inequality of movement between the poles be creating a
potential for a spontaneous magnetic adjustment at some point in the
future? Is it also possible that magnetic position data after 2005
could present an even more dramatic difference?
What most theorists and scientists don’t generally agree on is whether magnetic pole shifts and
geographic pole shifts
are related or occur in close proximity to one another, how long the
poles generally take to complete a shift, and how far the poles may
actually move. From a position of probability, there is no proof that
the ongoing movement in the magnetic poles is the beginning of a much
larger movement or complete shift in the poles. There is also no proof
that either a magnetic or geologic pole shift will occur through the
possible cosmic or
Earth events.
It is commonly accepted, however, that any event that could result in an
Earth Crust Displacement event
or reverse Earth's magnetic poles would require more energy than is
contained with Earth itself. In other words, scientists generally
agree that such events require and are the result of some
external cosmic influence acting upon Earth.
There are numerous theories related to potential cosmic events that
could be influencing the current magnetic pole movement. Some of these
theories include: a plasma ribbon, superwave, planetX/Nibiru, and even
the celestial and galactic alignment that occurs approximately once
every 13,000 years. Although some of these theories include claims that
they are being monitored from satellites or Earth-based telescopes,
there appears to be no proof of the theories or the claims.
Most people may also be aware that Earth is not the only planet being
affected by whatever cosmic event is influencing Earth. There is
scientific evidence that something is
affecting the Sun and the heliosphere
that protects Earth and every planet from galactic radiation.
Scientists are also monitoring changes on virtually every planet in our
solar system including and most notably: Mars, Venus, and Jupiter.
The real question is whether the ongoing cosmic event is going to
precipitate a magnet pole shift as theorized by scientists and if so,
how fast might such a pole shift occur. If the pole shift occurs
slowly, over thousands or millions of years, the effects on the crust
and life on the surface of Earth is theorized to be negligible.
However, what most of these theories seem to neglect is the evidence
that the magnetic pole movement is not linear, but rather exponential.
If the movement is exponential, then it is also highly possible that
the magnetic pole shift could occur in a period of tens or hundreds of
years. Clearly the measurable movement in the above graph supports the
potential of eventual movement of one or more degrees longitude and
latitude annually. Having access to the magnetic movement data after
2005 would certainly either support or contradict the exponential
movement theory, however, the governments are not providing any recent
data on this event.
And if the movement is exponential, one could theorize that a one or
two degree longitude and latitude annual shift of magnetic poles would
ultimately be followed by five and ten degree annual shift. In fact,
this theory could account for a very rapid and dramatic shift in the
final steps of the entire process. And if such a rapid shift where to
be part of the theorized magnetic pole shift, there is probably no way
to understand the full affect on Earth's crust, a geographic pole shift,
and all life on Earth's surface.
A rapid shift in the magnetic poles and Earth's crust reversing direction of rotation per the
Earth Crust Displacement Theory
could explain ancient references that describe a time when the Sun
rose on the opposite equator. Egyptian, Chinese, and South American
cultures describe multiple times in their history where the Sun did not
rise or set for a period of 3 days, and when the Sun did rise again,
it rose from the opposite horizon. Even in the Koran, it states that a
future event will result in our Sun rising from the opposite horizon.
Pole Shift (geographic): A shift in “geographic”
poles is another commonly discussed concept throughout the scientific
world. This is the theory that an internal or external force acts upon
Earth to reposition the arctic poles anywhere from their current
position by a few degree up to 180 degrees. A widely accepted, yet
false, belief is that the “magnetic” poles of Earth flip as a result of a
180 degree flip in the “geographic” poles. For those who are aware of
how Earth's magnetic poles and electromagnetic field are created, it becomes obvious that a 180 degree geographic shift would only result in a magnetic pole shift if the
Earth Crust Displacement Theory holds true.
In contrast to a
shift in “magnetic” poles,
the cataclysmic consequences of a shift in “geographic” poles pales in
comparison. Some light can be shed on the potential of this event by
considering the astronomical observations of ancient cultures.
Virtually every ancient culture has left information that tells us
they were well aware of the 12 constellations (The Zodiac) that encircle
Earth. At the present moment, these constellations circle Earth in an
elliptical orbit that crosses the equator at an angle of 23 degrees.
Ancient cultures describe a time when these constellations circled the
Earth directly around the equator. From this information, we can
conclude that the poles have shifted 23 degrees from the time these
ancient astronomers recorded those observations.
In addition, there is geological proof that Earth’s poles have
shifted in the past. One example of this proof was discovered by the
scientists that drill for ice core samples in the Antarctic. As these
scientists drill through the ice at ever increasing depths, they extract
the ice samples for measurement of carbon dioxide, dust, and Earth’s
temperature. However, these scientists were surprised when they found
organic material underneath the ice that dates back some 450,000 years.
Other examples include the well publicized Beresovka mammoth that was
found frozen in the Siberian ice with grass still in its mouth and
stomach. This means the mammoth was actually grazing in a field as the
weather become so cold that everything froze almost instantly. You can’t
even write this off as a freak storm that came through in a
once-in-a-lifetime event because the mammoth wasn’t simply frozen, but
also buried in the ice from that moment until it was recently discovered
by man. Whatever caused the mammoth to freeze didn’t just come and go,
but came and stayed from that moment until recent times. And this is not
an isolated incident. The following map represents locations in the
northern regions of Russia where mammoth and rhinoceros remains have
been unearthed in the frozen tundra.
From historic references and the ongoing excavation and mining of
mammoth and rhinoceros ivory, it's estimated there could thousands of
such remains in this region. Since neither of these animals can survive
without grasslands for grazing, this means the region must have been
warm while these animals lived there and then suddenly froze, trapping
them without a source of food. There is other scientific information
that refers to the mammoth and rhinoceros as tropical animals and even
though the mammoth had a coat of fur, it would not be accustomed to
living or able to survive in cold climates.
Ancient references and recent theories into geographic pole shifts
indicate that the most likely cause for such events are the result of
external cosmic forces acting on Earth. Some of the theories into these
external cosmic forces include: the Sun, comets, PlanetX or Niburu,
plasma ribbon, superwave, and more recently, the alignment between the
galactic and celestial equators. It’s theoretically possible that any
one of these cosmic forces could cause a geographic pole shift on Earth.
The basic theory starts with the understanding that every planet,
solar system, galaxy, and potentially the entire universe operate of the
principles of energy, electromagnetic forces, equilibrium, and magnetic
poles. Further that rotating electromagnetic bodies attract and repel
other bodies like a magnet. This can be seen by moons that orbit
planets, planets that orbit stars, and stars that orbit galaxies. All of
these interactions are based on the principles of electromagnetism. It
doesn’t matter if these bodies are expanding or contracting, the
electromagnetic principles still apply to the basic structures.
The forces created by spinning iron are exactly what create
electromagnetic fields and the magnetic poles around a planet, solar
system, or galaxy. In essence, any rotating body composed of iron is
simply an electromagnet. With this understanding of electromagnetism, it
becomes easier to imagine how one such magnet might affect the rotation
or geographic position of another magnet. Cosmic forces of this nature
can, therefore, be expressed in a physical sense as two magnets being
moved past each other.
Those who have performed such experiments in high school physics
class know the result. The electromagnetic forces increase as the
magnets are held closer together and the larger magnet controls the
action of the smaller magnet. This is an important reference to the
cosmic event that is about to interaction with Earth. Whether this event
is caused by a comet, brown dwarf star, galactic equator, or some other
force, it’s likely that force will have a more powerful electromagnetic
energy than Earth. In other words, it will overpower Earth’s
electromagnetic field.
Now, let’s imagine Earth being held in orbit by the electromagnetic
forces of the Sun and the other planets in our solar system and
something with a larger magnetic force begins to act on Earth. If the
external force is strong enough, a pole shift and even a change in
rotation are possible outcomes from such an event.
Earth is going through a variety of changes at this moment that
actually could facilitate a geographic pole shift in the very near
future. These changes include a slowing of Earth’s core and a weakening
of Earth’s electro-magnetic field. Since Earth’s electro-magnetic field
is responsible for the stability of our geographic North and South
poles, it makes sense that a weakening of that field creates a greater
potential for an external force to act upon it.
There isn't much scientific proof related to how far the geographic
poles might shift or how long this process might take from start to
completion. For now, we can only refer to information of a more esoteric
nature such as ancient literature and prophecy. These sources suggest
that the geographic pole shift will be between 20 to 45 degrees over a
period of between 5 and 10 hours. They also suggest the new North Pole
could be somewhere near Northern Mongolia in Russia. (See
video on Earth’s New Equator After the Pole Shift)
In order to do some calculations on these figures, we will use the
more extreme case of a 45 degree geographic pole shift over a period of 5
hours. Earth is about 40,000 km in circumference at the equator,
therefore, during a 45 degree pole shift, the surface of Earth would
travel approximately 5,000 km. If we use 5 hours as the time it takes to
complete the shift, this means that Earth is moving at 1,000 km/hr (621
mi/hr) at the equator. If we use the more conservative predictions of
20 degrees over 10 hours, this speed becomes 222 km/hr (138 mi/hr) at
the equator. Of course either of these ground speeds are reduced
significantly as you move away from plane of rotation.
The “geographic” and “magnetic” pole shift scenarios are unique in
the overall application of force on Earth’s crust. In the case of the
“magnetic” shift, Earth’s crust is coming to a complete stop in the
East/West directions, but with the “geographic” shift, Earth’s crust is
starting up and stopping in the North/South directions. The braking
system on the crust is the same for either event and is a combination of
the friction between the crust and mantle along with the buckling of
the crust upon itself. The motion of the crust would eventually slowing
down and stop in its new position. If there is a light side to this
events, it would be that the initial cataclysmic affects probably
wouldn’t last very long before the crust movement decelerated and
settled into a new state of equilibrium.
The most important difference between the “magnetic” and “geographic”
pole shifts comes down to varying degrees of cataclysm. Both events
produce rotational surface forces that can literally move mountains and
could be lethal to virtually all life on the Earth's surface.
The Sun & Extreme Heat: When you ask yourself
what past events have occurred on Earth that relate to the Sun, two
things come to mind; ice ages and global warming. We all know that it’s a
common belief that global warming is created by mankind with the
burning of fossil fuels and maybe even that ice ages have nothing to do
with the Sun. The following graph of ice core sample data from the
Antarctic provides some very interesting fuel for thought. As you can
see, this graph tracks the change in Earth’s overall temperature for the
last 450,000 years.
This graph includes data from two different core drilling sites in
the Antarctic. One called EPICA (in blue) is managed by the European
Union and the other called Vostok (in green) is managed by the Soviet
Union. At the bottom of this graph, you can see data that represents the
ice volume (in red) on Earth during the same period. Our current
position on this graph is at the far left, otherwise known as the zero
point on the graph.
This graph shows that Earth’s overall temperature fluctuates from 6
degrees centigrade warmer to almost 9 degrees cooler than our current
temperature. From this graph, you can easily see that when Earth is in a
warming period that the ice covering Earth is melting at almost the
identical inverse relationship to temperature, but maybe you can see
something that others do not. Can you see a pattern?
The above graph shows that Earth is in an ice age period when the
overall temperature is a mere 3 to 6 degrees centigrade cooler than it
is today. The data also shows that Earth came out of the last ice age
and started heating up approximately 20,000 yrs ago, came out of the ice
age completely about 13,000 yrs ago, and has maintained a fairly stable
temperature ever since. So, what does this data tell us? Have you
figured it out yet?
This data basically tells us two things. First, ice ages have a
cyclical pattern which obviously has nothing to do with humans causing
global warming. After all, Earth started heating up and coming out of
the last ice age about 20,000 years ago. You can see that as the planet
started heating up, the ice volume was being reduced in direct
proportion. In fact, in the last 13,000 years, the temperature on Earth
has stayed fairly constant which is also reflected in a slowing of ice
volume reduction across the planet.
Second, is the existence of an observable cycle within the 450,000
years of ice core sample data. If you look at the data, you can see an
obvious pattern where Earth enters a cooling cycle for approximately
80,000 years followed by a heat cycle of about 20,000 years. These
figures combined result in a cycle for ice ages of approximately 100,000
years, like clockwork.
Since mankind has not been burning fossil fuels for even 200 years,
you can see that whatever caused the temperature on Earth to start
increasing dramatically 20,000 years ago and then stabilize at the
current temperatures for the last 13,000 years was not the result of
humans. This data also proves that mankind is not the cause for the
melting of polar and glacial ice that has been happening for 20,000
years. This one graph proves that global warming has nothing to do with
mankind burning fossil fuels, and therefore, nothing to do with mankind
at all.
The relationship between the Sun’s irradiance and our current state
of global warming is often under debate, but not often enough as the
“global warming agenda” appears to have most people convinced the cause
is related to humans. From the below chart on cosmic radiation, you can
see that there are two main sources of radiation that affect Earth’s
surface temperature and climate, those being the Sun and the galaxy.
This means that either a change in the Sun’s irradiance or a change
in Earth’s protective shield can alter Earth’s surface temperature and
climate. Likewise, a change in galactic radiation or our protection from
that radiation could also alter Earth’s surface temperature and
climate. According to astronomers, the Sun has just completed Solar
Cycle 23 which produced the largest solar flare ever recorded, but that
hasn’t seemed to influence their conclusions on global warming. Of
course, this solar cycle has repeated itself and been observed for over
100 years without any major deviations to concern scientists.
According to scientists, Earth’s magnetic core has been slowing down
for decades and it’s theorized that Earth’s magnetic field is generated
by this revolving magnetic core. Scientists have also determined that
Earth’s magnetic field has weakened to its lowest levels in recorded
history. However, scientists are reluctant to draw any correlation
between these two events as they report the slowdown in Earth’s core is a
minor perturbation and would not affect the more significant changes to
Earth’s electromagnetic field. Of course, this electromagnetic field is
what protects Earth from the Sun’s harmful radiation.
From the above chart on cosmic radiation, you can also see that Earth
must also endure the affects of galactic radiation. This is radiation
coming from the Milky Way galaxy and other sources, of which we are a
member. The primary protection from this galactic radiation is the Sun’s
electromagnet field also known as the heliosphere. Much like Earth’s
electromagnetic field, the Sun also has a similar field, however, this
heliosphere doesn’t only protect the Sun and Earth, but it stretches out
beyond Earth to include every planet in our solar system.
Scientists have proven the Sun is going through changes today that
they have never witnessed before. In October 2008, NASA scientists
warned that the heliosphere, the protective shield of energy that
surrounds our solar system, has weakened by 25 per cent over the past
decade and is now at it lowest level since the space race began 50 years
ago. This means that, since 2008, Earth is being bombarded with at
least 25% more cosmic radiation from the galaxy.
This graph represents this 50 years of data in 10 year increments.
This certainly would not be considered sound scientific analysis on any
level; however, without access to detailed data on the decay rate of the
heliosphere, this will have to do. Certainly this would not be
considered proof of anything on a scientific level, but it does provide
for an interesting theory and even more interesting visual.
If we consider the theory that heliosphere decay is not simply a
one-time fluctuation that will reverse within the next 10 years, but
rather the possibility that it’s a trend, a cycle, or pattern that
continues on before it recovers, then this theory has far reaching
consequences. Even with this crude graphical representation of the
heliosphere decay data, any extrapolation of data out to 2012 or beyond
would point, not just to further decay, but rather to an exponential
decay. For Earth and the entire solar system, such a decay theory could
be catastrophic.
To be certain, there is little known about long-term fluctuations in
the heliosphere, but scientists are baffled at what could be causing
this protective barrier to shrink in this way. If the heliosphere
continues to weaken, scientists fear that the amount of cosmic radiation
reaching the inner parts of our solar system, including Earth, will
increase. This could result in growing levels of disruption to
electrical equipment, damage satellites and potentially even harm life
on Earth.
There is a very high energy galactic radiation that is dangerous to
living things. Around 90 per cent of the galactic cosmic radiation is
deflected by our heliosphere, so the boundary protects us from this
harsh galactic environment. Without the heliosphere the harmful
intergalactic cosmic radiation would make life on Earth almost
impossible by destroying DNA and making the climate uninhabitable. Could
an increase in intergalactic cosmic radiation have anything to do with
other changes that are occurring on Earth? Since this is a new and
unknown phenomenon, it’s likely the scientists have no idea of the
overall impact of this radiation on planet Earth. Is it at all possible
that an increase in galactic radiation could trigger earthquakes,
volcanoes, or extreme weather on Earth?
NASA, NOAA, and ESA are also predicting that Solar Cycle 24, which
just started, could be up to 50% stronger than its 'record breaking'
predecessor Cycle 23 which produced the largest solar flare ever
recorded. This means that we just entered a period where Earth could
experience unprecedented radiation from the Sun in the next few years.
The Sun will actually reach its 'apex' (maximum potential of solar cycle
24) in late 2011 into 2012.
Does anyone find it interesting that Earth has entered a period of
unprecedented exposure to intergalactic cosmic radiation and is entering
a period of unprecedented radiation from the Sun? Does anyone find it
interesting that so many cosmic and Earth based events can be
correlated? The fact is that Earth is being impacted by something
external. Is it reasonable to consider that approaching the galactic
equator is affecting the electromagnetic fields of both Earth and the
Sun? It certainly seems more plausible than many of the other theories.
It doesn’t take a genius, climatologist, or any other kind of
scientist to see the pattern in the below graph of ice core sample data.
Even allowing for a small error of variance, the data shows
conclusively that something causes Earth to heat up and cool down in a
cyclical pattern. So, why are the governments and their scientist unable
to see this pattern in Earth’s current warming cycle? Does anyone think
their scientists are that blind or is it possible they just can’t tell
people what they know? Is it possible they support the concept that
“global warming” is man-made in order to divert attention from the
truth?
Not everyone is on the global warming is man-made band wagon,
however, it appears that most people are still receiving the majority of
their news and information from the mainstream media, and that fact
alone means that most people will not received a balance understanding
of the facts. The fact is that global warming certainly wasn’t caused by
humans and may not even be influenced by humans or the burning of
fossil fuels. The ice core sample data doesn’t support such a theory. In
fact, the ice core sample data provides proof that such a theory has no
basis in science.
We often hear of the so-called “scientific proof” that global warming
is man-made; however, this information is usually delivered by
politicians and the media rather than the actual scientists. When was
the last time you heard a government scientist get in front of the
microphone and provide the results of their research? The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific
intergovernmental body tasked to evaluate the risk of climate change
caused by human activity. This body employs about 3,000 scientists to
research and support their claims that global warming is man-made. And
it's openly discussed that many of these 3,000 scientists are not
actually scintists at all. This chart shows how all IPCC agendas and
reports are filtered by the government three separate times before they
are ever published.
What we don’t ever hear about are the thousands of scientists that
vehemently dispute the IPCC conclusions on the basis of real scientific
evidence. This conglomerate of scientist has grown in numbered from
about 17,000 in 2006 to more than 30,000 in 2009. Included in this group
are over 9,000 PhD’s. Now compare the 30,000 independent scientists
that have concluded that global warming is NOT man-made with the 3,000
government scientists that conclude otherwise. Do you have any thoughts
on which group you would tend to believe if you knew there was a choice?
Instead of itemizing the proof into why global warming is NOT man-made,
click here to find several videos on the subject.
The following video includes interviews of climate scientists and
biologists from numerous sources who explain, step by step, why the
global warming alarmists are incorrect. In some cases, blatantly so.
Everyone in the world needs to hear this side of the global warming
story.
Global Warming or Global Governance (120min)
The conclusions from these scientists, using sound research, and actual scientific analysis are staggering and include:
- Global warming is a real phenomenon.
- CO2 is not responsible for global warming.
- Mankind’s influence on global warming is insignificant.
- Global warming is directly related to emissions from the Sun.
- The global warming agenda is about money, not science.
- How the third world is paying for the global warming agenda.
The question then becomes; if CO2 is increasing and is caused by
Earth heating up, is the sun really getting hotter? The answer is yes,
however, the Sun, like everything else, operates in cycles. The data
provided by NASA called “Solar Cycles” reveals exactly this point.
Although these cycles have been predictable for the last 50 years, NASA,
NOAA, and ESA are also predicting that Solar Cycle 24, which just
started, could be up to 50% stronger than its 'record breaking'
predecessor Cycle 23 which produced the largest solar flare ever
recorded.
One question might be whether scientists have even questioned the
possibility of Solar Cycles that my take hundreds, thousands, or
millions of year to repeat. If Earth’s temperature is directly related
to the Sun’s output, then we most certainly have proof of these cycle
buried within the ice core data from the Antarctic.
Even allowing for a error of variance, the above graph shows
conclusively that something causes Earth to heat up and cool down in a
cyclical pattern. The governments and their scientists know that answer.
This is why NASA is sending up two new satellites in 2009 to do nothing
but monitor the sun. NASA is also decommissioning the Hubble Telescope
in 2010. This certainly means that NASA will cut the feed to the general
scientific community, but does anyone really believe they will just
turn it off? It’s more likely they intend on using it to monitor cosmic
activities, but just don’t want that data getting into the hands of the
public.
This image provides a visual representation of how the Arctic ice
pack has receded exponentially from 2000 to 2007. As you can see from
this image, the yellow line represents the median minimum size of the
ice pack from the years 1979 to 2000. In 2005, the ice pack shrunk
dramatically to a new minimum represented by the blue line. And in 2007,
the ice pack shrunk even further as represented by the white area in
this image. To further support this visual, let’s look at even more
recent data of the Arctic ice melt.
In this image, the older ice is referenced by the dark blue color.
According to calculations from the National Snow and Ice Data Center,
ice older than two years now accounts for less than 10 percent of the
Arctic ice pack. From 1987 data on the central Arctic Basin, researchers
have concluded that 57 percent of the ice pack was 5 or more years old,
and 25 percent of that had been around at least 9 years. By 2007, only 7
percent of the ice was 5 or more years old, and very old ice (at least 9
years) had completely disappeared. Recent reports for 2009 reveal the
Arctic ice continues to recede more rapidly that the scientist's ongoing
revised calculations.
The Arctic Ice is melting at an exponential rate, but the scientists
also make a point to state that the Antarctic ice pack has grown
slightly. In their attempts to dispel the concept of global warming,
scientist somehow correlate an exponential melting in the Arctic with a
slight growth in the Antarctic as somehow balancing out. Although the
Antarctic ice volume is greater than the Arctic, this is primarily due
to the fact that most of the Arctic ice develops over water while most
of the Antarctic ice develops over land. The below image provides a
comparison between the Arctic and Antarctic. As you can imagine, as
Earth and the ocean temperatures increase, the Arctic is affected more
directly than the Antarctic.
Some consideration must be given to the scientist assertions that ice
in the Arctic is decreasing while ice in the Antarctic is increasing,
but how do they account for the fact that glaciers are also melting at
the fastest rate ever recorded? The fact is they usually don’t discuss
the glacial melting in the same breath. The reality is those scientists
who promote that global warming is man-made and those who promote that
global warming is a myth, only provide data to supports their side of
the claims.
This is nothing new, and in fact, you can say this about most
research of any nature. The only way to gain a clearer picture is to
assimilate and combine the research from both sides of an issue. Much
like a jury in a court case, in order to give justice to any topic, we
must hear the facts, weight the evidence, and draw our own conclusions.
We’ve all heard the back and forth ranting about global warming and
the melting ice packs. One day the news says that the Arctic ice pack
has built back to historic levels, but what they don’t tell you is when
summer came, the ice pack receded past all previously recorded low
points. They just want you to believe the ice pack was building up
because Earth is getting colder. And the reason the Arctic ice recedes
more quickly and more severely each year during the warm season is
because it’s no longer a hardened ice pack. Any ice pack that builds up
over just a single year isn’t the same density as ice that was built up
over decades. This means, under current conditions, the Arctic ice pack
is melting more rapidly and more deeply during the warm season.
Our climate exists in a delicate balance that includes: emissions
from the Sun, reflective cloud cover, reflective ice cover, thermal
currents in the ocean, heat and ash from volcanic activity, etc. There
are signs all around us that this pendulum has swung out of balance.
While NASA climate scientists were reviewing radiation data emanating
from the tropics simply to test existing notions, they uncovered a
phenomenon they were not expecting. They found that progressively more
thermal radiation has been escaping the atmosphere above the tropics and
progressively less sunlight has been reflecting off of the clouds.
A similar phenomenon holds true for ice cover on the planet. More ice
cover means more sunlight is reflected and less radiation (heat) is
absorbed by the surface of Earth. Conversely, less ice cover means more
radiation is absorbed by Earth. Is it, therefore, logical to consider
this pattern could become cyclical? In other words, is it possible that
as more ice melts, then more radiation is absorbed by our planet and if
more radiation is absorbed by our planet, then more ice melts?
It’s common knowledge that our Sun goes through scientifically
observed heating and cooling cycles called “solar cycles”. This image
shows the different heating and cooling periods for the recent solar
cycle 23. But is it possible there are other longer-term cycles that, to
this point, have gone scientifically unobserved? Absolutely! The ice
age core data reveals the possibility of just such cycles. Is it also
possible that some cycles are triggered by external cosmic forces that
have yet to be discovered? Absolutely! Due to the nature of the
question, the answer is neither easy to prove or easy to answer,
however, there is some scientific evidence to justify such a theory.
A Russian scientist by the name of Dr. Aleskey Dmitriev has confirmed
just such a possibility. Dr. Aleskey Dmitriev is a Russian professor of
geology and mineralogy and the chief scientific member of the United
Institute of Geology, Geophysics and Mineralogy within the Siberian
department of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Dr. Dmitriev is an expert
on global ecology and fast-processing Earth events. According to Dr.
Dmitriev, since 1963, our entire solar system has been changing. His
research has found that every planet in our solar system, the sun and
even our moon are experiencing increases in energy field, changes in
luminosity and even changes in atmosphere. Dr. Dmitriev attributes these
changes to the affects of some external force acting on our solar
system.
In addition to Dr. Dmitriev’s research, there are more recent
discoveries related to ongoing changes in our solar system. Depending on
the specific planet and our ability to observe and measure changes on
that planet, these changes could be in the form of either an
electromagnetic or geophysical nature. In the case of the Sun, the
strength of the heliosphere has been reduced by 25% over the last 10
years. In the case of Mars, the polar ice cap is melting. In the case of
Jupiter, a change is occurring in the chemical make up. In the case of
Venus, we are seeing storm activity that has never been witnessed
before. In with Earth, we are experiencing a weakened electromagnetic
field, global warming, and an increase in severe weather, earthquakes,
and volcanic activity.
Here are a couple possible causes for the observable changes to the Sun, Earth, and our entire solar system.
- The Sun is going through an internal, natural, and previously unobserved cycle without any external cosmic influence.
- An external cosmic force, previously unobserved by modern scientists, is acting on the Sun and solar system.
Timeline 2012 has provided evidence that changes to the Sun and our
solar system are possibly being triggered by an external cosmic force,
such as a rogue body passing through our solar system or from our solar
system aligning with the galactic and celestial equators. However,
without further proof, there is the possibility the cause is from an
internal, natural, and long-term cycle of the Sun which has never been
recorded or observed by modern scientists. The later theory can be
supported by the observable cycles in the ice age core sample data.
Either theory can be supported by the fact that changes in our solar
system have been observed for almost 50 years by scientists such as Dr.
Aleskey Dmitriev.
For arguments sake, let’s consider the theory that these changes are
the result of our entire solar system approaching and ultimately
aligning with the galactic and celestial equators sometime in the near
future. The
Timeline To 2012 presentation details some of the possible changes to our Sun and Earth that could be triggered by such an event.
Besides these direct impacts to both the Sun and Earth, there are
many other possible changes that could be triggered by this alignment.
One change is the theory that the Sun could become hyperactivated and
get much hotter, even larger, during the alignment. Imagine the impact
on Earth and other planets if the Sun gets 20% to 30% hotter during the
event. Imagine what happens to Earth’s electromagnetic field from either
changes in the Sun and/or the energy being produced by the alignment.
We’ve discussed the possible changes to the Sun and Earth from the
alignment of the galactic and celestial equators, but what about changes
to other planets in our solar system? Jupiter’s atmosphere is often
described as a combination of highly charged storms and chemical gases.
Recent reports suggest that there are already changes occurring in the
chemical composition of Jupiter which scientists don’t understand. Is it
so hard to imagine that the same energy field that could cause the Sun
to get 20% to 30% hotter could also cause a chain reaction that
transforms Jupiter?
Some prophecy related to the coming events state that Jupiter will be
transformed into a blue “star”. These same prophecies don’t provide an
explanation of what causes this transformation or give any indication of
how it’s going to occur, but if you’ve watched the
Timeline To 2012 presentation, then you may begin to see this becomes a very realistic possibility.
There’s more going on during the coming events than just the
possibility of the Sun getting 20% to 30% hotter. What happens in the
upper atmosphere of Earth from the Sun’s increased irradiance, the
increased radiation from the galaxy, or from the alignment of the
galactic and celestial equators? And what if Earth stops rotating and
then begins to rotate in the opposite direction? What kind of forces and
influences could it have on electromagnetic field and satellite
technology? What about EMI (electromagnetic interference) from the
geophysical activities on the surface of Earth? Could this result in
electrical discharges or arcing energies between objects on Earth and in
space?
Right now, all it takes is a Sun flare to knock out ground-based
power grids and cause satellites to fail. We are already seeing this
across the planet today. How many times have you gone to use your cell
phone only to see there is no signal? It’s possible that some of these
events are the result of system overloads and ground-based system
failures; however, it’s certain that our power grids and satellites are
experiencing more failures as we approach this time in history. The
below video is Part 1 of 5 in a series by National Geographic that
describes the science of the Sun and how solar flares affect Earth and
can cause failures in our power grids.
Whether satellites and power grids fail as a result of the energy
field created by the alignment, the increase in radiation from the Sun,
or one of the other EMI factors is probably not very important. What may
be more important is the affect of solar winds and energy bursts that
are likely to damage or destroy anything solar related and most
electronics whether on Earth or in orbit.
These are likely to be some very high powered energy and radiation
fields that expand as they move through space and our solar system. Even
if the direct impact from a hyperactive Sun may only affect 50% of
Earth’s surface, the energy field would affect Earth’s entire
electromagnetic field.
All GPS and satellite systems require communication and control from
ground based systems. Even if some satellites or ground-based
electronics manage to survive these events, it’s still questionable
whether anyone on the ground would be able to reestablish communication
with anything in orbit. GPS systems also require three satellites in
order to triangulate positions and function as a navigation device. This
means a GPS would only function after such events if three navigation
satellites, from the same network, are still in operational, are still
communicating with ground-based systems, and are all operating in your
quadrant of space. Hmmm. I wouldn’t want to calculate the probability of
that occurring.
The extreme heating of the sun will also post some effects on our weather condition and if it gets worst we can also experience a massive solar flare that could penetrate to the earth's crust. No one will survive this calamity since it carries deadly radiation that will incinerate any life form in it's path. These scenarios is so extreme that we have no chance in escaping it nor survive it. The only thing we could do is to prepare ourselves. We should never be afraid of death, It is a natural part of the circle life and all beings experience it.
Will the Philippines form part of the U.S.'s missile defense system in Asia?
Abrazado, Robredo's police aide who clambered out of the aircraft
before it sank and was rescued later by fishermen, said that the pilot
was looking for the runway to make an emergency landing while the plane,
which already lost its right engine, was flying very low over the city.
Christian Bale in "Dark Knight Rises"
