cataclysm in 2012 imminent?

"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:

1. Global warming is a real phenomenon.
2. CO2 is not responsible for global warming.
3. Mankind’s influence on global warming is insignificant.
4. Global warming is directly related to emissions from the Sun.
5. The global warming agenda is about money, not science.
6. 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.

1. The Sun is going through an internal, natural, and previously unobserved cycle without any external cosmic influence.
2. 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.