Monday, November 5, 2007

Mars, Crude Oil and Global Warming

Recently John Kanzius demonstrated that saltwater can be heated to high temperatures using radio waves. I wonder if this applies to Mars.

We know that Mars has subterranean oceans and increased output of solar radio waves would add incremental heat to them (albeit small).

However, if Mars suffered a reverse, runaway greenhouse affect as some scientists speculate, would this put trapped crude oil under the surface of Mars? If these crude oil deposits exist would they be significantly larger deposits than on Earth? Mars lost enough atmospheric CO2 to cause a reverse runaway greenhouse effect. In a reverse greenhouse process the CO2 would be trapped in stone and rock by water movement and geothermal pressure activity would create crude oil.

My larger question is how does crude oil interact with solar radio waves? Do they absorb energy from them more readily?

Are Mars’ subterranean crude oil and saltwater deposits picking up and storing the increased radio wave energy of the sun, thereby warming the planet, creating dust devils that increase the warming even more?

So I ask; What happens when you recreate John Kanzius’s radio wave experiment using crude oil instead of saltwater?

Can anybody tell me?

Wednesday, October 31, 2007

Are Fingerprints too magnetically steered in utero?

If hair follicles are steered by bio magnetic fields creating whorls and grain patterns, I wonder if fingerprints are simply a byproduct of the magnetic field of electrical impulses running through nerve bundles in the fingers.

These hair follicle patterns would be laid down in utero (Wunderlich, RC, Heerema, NA: Hair crown patterns of human newborns. Studies on parietal hair whorl locations and their directions. Clin Pediatr 1975, 14: 1045–1049, ISI ChemPort ) and since newborns come with both hair whorls and fingerprints the patterns are laid down early.

Oddly the only areas where patterned skin ridges exist are in the palms of hands and soles of feet where nerve bundles are concentrated.

If this hypothesis were true you would see variations in fingerprints based on nerve disorders and that evidence exists;

© Kamla-Raj 2007 Anthropologist, 9(1): 63-66 (2007)
Digital Dermatoglyphics in Leprosy
P.E.Natekar* and F. M. DeSouza
Department of Anatomy, Goa Medical College, Bambolim403202, Goa, India
*Telephone: (O) 0832-2458701-09 Ext.2250, (R) 0832-2458787 (M) 09326150001
KEYWORDS Finger Print Pattern. Total Finger Ridge Count. Absolute Finger Ridge Count. Leprosy

ABSTRACT Finger print patterns of 150 leprosy patients (100 paucibacillary and 50 multibacillary leprosy) were compared with 100 controls matched accordingly. The finger print pattern such as whorls, loops, arches, total finger ridge count (TFRC) and absolute finger ridge count (AFRC) were calculated. These dermatoglyphic parameters were compared to that of the controls. It was observed that the finger print pattern showed increase in the whorls and decrease in the loops in paucibacillary leprosy patients and increase in the loops and decrease in whorls in multibacillary leprosy patients (p<0.001) which is highly significant when compared to that of the control. The difference in the mean TFRC and AFRC in paucibacillary and multibacillary was also found to be highly significant (p<0.001) when it was compared to the control.

Are we simply looking at magnetic field steering in biology? Interesting question.

Monday, October 29, 2007

Galactic Formation and Cowlicks

I thought this anecdotal evidence regarding the tremendous steering force of magnetic fields may interest you.

I happened to be looking at an old research paper regarding magnetic fields within the human body from 1980. It concluded that hair follicles aligned and hair whorls (cowlicks) were the result of magnetic field alignments.


Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
Vol. 77, No. 3, pp. 1447-1451, March 1980
Magnetic fields produced by steady currents in the body
(steady magnetic field/direct current/steady potentials/hair follicle)
…”Because the scalp surface is relatively planar, the arrows
of Fig. 2 indicate only source currents (no volume currents). The
source must involve the thriving hair follicles, not only because
this dcMF (DC Magnetic Field) is absent where these follicles are absent, but also
because the general arrow pattern (Fig. 2) was found to coincide
with the common tilt pattern of the hair follicles of the scalp
(15, 16); this includes the occasional whorl (Fig. 2A). Stated
otherwise, the arrows coincide with the projection of the follicles
onto the scalp surface; the arrows point "into" the follicles. The
source associated with each follicle can therefore be considered
as a current dipole pointing along the follicle into the root and
located either within or near the follicle. If within, then this
source could be, for example, equivalent to a polarized layer
lining the follicle, with negative charges on the inside.”…

That is interesting all to itself, but it got me wondering if those who suffer from dyslexia may have different formal patterns of hair follicle whorls in their scalp than non-dyslexics. My son has dyslexia and he has hair whorls that are different from other family members.

It is amazing that the extremely small magnetic field of a human scalp could steer hair growth.

And that brought me to this equally bizarre study;


Excess of counterclockwise scalp hair-whorl
rotation in homosexual men
A M A R J . S . K L A R *
Ijamsville, MD 21754, USA
While most men prefer women as their sexual partners, some are bisexual and others are homosexuals. It has been debated
for a long time whether a person’s sexual preference is innate, learned, or due to a combination of both causes.
It was recently discovered that the human right-versus-left-hand use preference and the direction of scalp hair-whorl
rotation develop from a common genetic mechanism. Such a mechanism controls functional specialization of brain
hemispheres. Whether the same mechanism specifying mental makeup influences sexual preference was determined
here by comparing hair-whorl rotation in groups enriched with homosexual men with that in males at large. Only a
minority of 8.2% (n = 207) unselected ‘control’ group of males had counterclockwise rotation. In contrast, all three
samples enriched with homosexual men exhibited highly significant (P < 0.0001), 3.6-fold excess (29.8%, n = 272)
counterclockwise rotation. These results suggest that sexual preference may be influenced in a significant proportion
of homosexual men by a biological/genetic factor that also controls direction of hair-whorl rotation.
[Klar A. J. S. 2004 Excess of counterclockwise scalp hair-whorl rotation in homosexual men J. Genet. 83, 251–255]

If there is any truth at all to these studies it is interesting to think that magnetic fields not only steer the formation of galaxies, but trickle right down to the pattern your hair follicles grow in.

It would appear that the answer to the ultimate question of; the universe, life and everything is simply magnetic fields.

Magnetic fields have to be reconsidered, for although being weak forces it appears they have tremendous steering power.

If this data is anything more than anecdotal a half dozen or more studies pop to mind.

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

Oscillating through a magnetic field

Our slar system oscillates up and down through the galactic magnetic plane. Does that make the our sun rotate? Let's test.

Imagine the spherical magnet is our sun and the larger magnet I am holding is the galactic magnetic plane.

For simplicity I will oscillate the galactic magenetic field up and down. In reality it is the solar system moving up and down through the galactic magnetic plane.

So it appears the sun's rotation could be a direct result of it's orbit oscillating up and down through the galactic magnetic field.

Do the planents of our solar system rotate due an interaction with the sun's magnetic plane, or the galaxies magnetic plane? I am going to assume a trickle down affect and the galaxy affects the sun, and the sun affects the planets.

Monday, October 22, 2007

Hurricane - Come Hither

According to the “dynamo theory” which is defined as; “Dynamo theory describes the process through which motion of a conductive body in the presence of a magnetic field acts to regenerate that magnetic field.”, so I assume hurricanes have a weak magnetic field of their own.

(ie: Hurricanes rotate in a circular pattern, within a magnetic field, water is a conductor, and we know they produce electrical energy in the form of lightening. Why shouldn’t a hurricane have a weak magnetic field?)

So if a hurricane has a weak magnetic field it would move within the earth’s magnetic field lines in a very specific manner, or at least be influenced in its movement in a very specific manner by the earth’s magnetic field lines.

The earth’s magnetic field lines move in relationship to the surface because earth’s rotational axis and magnetic axis are not the same, but these two axis’ stay within a certain tolerance of each other. This would account for the “general” targeting of Gulf coast hurricanes rather than specific targeting.

Here is a model of earth’s magnetic field lines. I imagine the field lines move and shift marginally over time with stronger and weaker areas of magnetic force. Overall the field stays within tolerance of this model. The stronger magnetic forces towards the poles, the weaker forces to the equator. This image represents a snapshot in time. (these images are proposed magnetic field line models)

If a hurricane moving eastwards towards the Gulf coast has a magnetic field of its own, its course would be influenced every time it crossed one of the earth’s magnetic field lines. Sooner or later it would steer northwards.

Notice the number of and congestion of magnetic field lines running through North America and the Gulf Coast area.

You can actually see “hurricane alley” and “tornado alley”. In addition the coriolis effect (eastward arcing) of hurricanes tracking just outside of hurricane alley would be enhanced as it reached the strong magnetic field line running along the Eastern Canadian coastline, steering the hurricane out to sea.

The US Department of Defense offers this model of earth’s magnetic field lines;

At first glance this relationship seems to exist.

Possibly, when the earth’s magnetic field reverses the Gulf coast will no longer be a magnetic steering area for hurricanes.

Saturday, October 20, 2007

Magnetic Fields and Water Evaporation

I am getting back to my original posting that increased electromagnetic radio waves from the sun are warming saltwater. Therefore I am looking into the physical properties of water and how electromagnetic fields affect them.

Here is a bizarre little fact about water; Weak magnetic fields (15 mT) have also been shown to increase the evaporation rate. [L. Holysz, A. Szczes and E. Chibowski, Effects of static magnetic field on water and electrolyte solutions, J. Coll. Interface Sci. (2007) Article in press, doi:10.1016/j.jcis.2007. 08.026..]

And we know that the earth’s magnetic field is weakening prior to the field reversing;

If water evaporates better in low magnetic fields you would expect more droughts as the earth’s magnetic field weakens.

Drought's Growing Reach:NCAR Study Points to Global Warming as Key Factor
January 10, 2005
BOULDER- The percentage of Earth's land area stricken by serious drought more than doubled from the 1970s to the early 2000s, according to a new analysis by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). Widespread drying occurred over much of Europe and Asia, Canada, western and southern Africa, and eastern Australia. Rising global temperatures appear to be a major factor, says NCAR's Aiguo Dai, lead author of the study.

Would more evaporated water in earth's atmosphere produce a warming blanket?

Maybe it isn’t cosmic rays condensing water with their passing, but simply more water evaporating due to a weakening magnetic field.

Thursday, October 18, 2007

Galactic Formation and Magnetic Fields

The things you can learn when you are not looking…

Do you see any similarity between these shapes;
The one on the left is a photo of a spiral galaxy.

The shapes almost overlay perfectly.

The one on the right is ferrofluid (magnetic particles suspended in a liquid) exposed to a 25Hz magnetic field during an MIT experiment. The magnetic field is axial and the pattern rotates and evolves over time.

I simply flipped the ferrofluid image horizontally and rotated it to alignment. The same result could be achieved by the reversal of the DC charge in the experiment.

You can view the 2002 MIT experiment here on YouTube;

So does this mean that rotation and galactic formation are simply a byproduct of magnetic fields and that gravity is not the primary mover, simply another aspect of magnatism?

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

Popping The Question

I have started reading the debate regarding a fusion core sun versus the iron core sun. The proponents of the fusion core point to the crab pulsar as how a neutron star operates.

Since it is all theory, I would like to ask a question?

Could a pulsar simply be a star which is reversing its magnetic poles very quickly?

Living rurally I am very aware of the electromagnetic signature of electricity reversing direction in an electric animal fence. As you drive by you can hear the electromagnetic signature on your AM radio popping with each surge of current.

With that in mind I would look towards our sun for an electromagnetic signature change when it changes poles every 11 years. Is there an electromagnetic “pop” of some duration as the sun’s poles reverse? Does the profile of our sun’s electromagnetic “pop” mimic that of a pulsar only much slower? Thirdly, are pulsars simply stars reversing their poles very, very quickly?

From the Iron Sun debate only one thing comes to mind. For the sun to be fusion cored it would have to be a pure hydrogen/helium giant. What are the chances of a gravitational body being pure anything? Common sense tells me there is a core made of heavier materials than helium and hydrogen, which would have sunk to the core of the sun, based on their density.

Possibly neither debate is fully correct, but a combination of the two.

Wednesday, October 10, 2007

Galactic Game of “Six Degrees of Seperation"

In the broadest of strokes, and from my layman’s standpoint, these are the broad strokes in the galactic game of “Six Degrees of Seperation”;

  • 365 degrees galactic year

  • ~122 degrees full solar galactic oscillation occurs

  • ~61 degrees solar systems crosses the galactic plane

  • ~28 degrees Earths wobble and the seasons

  • ~14 degrees Sun’s degree of oscillation to the galactic plane

  • ~6 degrees solar systems variation to galactic plane

  • 1 degree of solar magnetic field line variance Earth reverses magnetic field

  • 0 degrees largest massive extinction on Earth every ~225 million years. Start of new galactic year.

That is the whole enchilada. Kind of makes a nice symmetry doesn’t it. Earthy events can be plotted for every one of those points and their convergence from Earth's geologic record.

God!!! I just boiled down everything in the galaxy to eight lines of information. Talk about reducing intelligent thought into pabulum.

Monday, October 8, 2007

Why Does the Earth's Magnetic Field Reverse?

Scientists wonder why the earth’s magnetic field reverses on a regular basis. In the last 71 million years the earth has reversed it poles 171 times, however they do not know why. They state…

The Earth's magnetic field is attributed to a dynamo effect of circulating electric current, but it is not constant in direction. Rock specimens of different age in similar locations have different directions of permanent magnetization. Evidence for 171 magnetic field reversals during the past 71 million years has been reported.
Although the details of the dynamo effect are not known in detail, the rotation of the Earth plays a part in generating the currents which are presumed to be the source of the magnetic field.

I think they are making two mistakes; I believe..

1. The earth is a giant electromagnet. The power for this electromagnet comes from the solar winds that are composed of protons and neutrons that collect at either pole and the flowing electrons power the earth’s electromagnet field.
2. The earth is in a constant orbit that passes between varying lines of the suns magnetic field due to the sun changing its orientation to a galactic magnetic constant.

Why do I think that? There has to be evidence in nature to support my theory. Lets look at an actual magnetic field of a bar magnet. This is done by placing a bar magnetic under a piece of paper that has iron filings on it. It looks like this; (we have all done this as children)

Each one of those lines of magnetic field is in opposition to the next, each repelling the next in both directions. You cannot help but notice there is space between the magnetic field lines.

Now think in solar and galactic terms and the space between the magnetic field lines are immense. If the earth was an electromagnet as I theorize every time it crossed a magnetic field line its polarity would reverse. Just like this;

There would be a specific periodicity of cyclicality to this change. This timing involves how the sun changes its angular relationship to the magnetic field of the galaxy as it oscillates up and down along the galactic plane.

There is a ton of math I have to do to prove this but my pictorial example shows how earths orbit remains steady, but as the suns angle changes over millions of years the earth would shift through the magnetic field lines.

The math involves the sun’s orbital speed around the galaxy, the speed the sun oscillates up and down in its orbit of the galaxy, the distance covered in latitude, and some other items I will have to think about. But I will bet you the answer is that the earth crosses one of sun’s magnetic field lines every 415,205 years. When it crosses the line the magnetic field reverses just like any good electromagnet that is in repulsion mode.

The math will also reveal the distance between the sun’s lines of magnetism which will lead to other answers.

Sun Outer Layer Rotation Correction?

I used this animation of how our Sun oscillates up and down in its equatorial rotation throughout the year. I think I am looking at it totally backwards…

This animation depicts our sun’s change in;

  • Bo - the heliographic latitude of the centre of the disk,

  • Lo - the heliographic longitude of the centre of the disk,

  • P - the position angle of the north end of the axis of rotation and the apparent diameter of the Sun.

What if the sun varies very little and it is just the angle we view the sun from that is changing?

What if the equator of the sun stays nearly aligned with some galactic constant whether it be magnetic, or mass related, while our view of the Sun varies from the degree of variation of earth’s orbit to that galactic constant?

I believe that our solar systems orbit is 63 degrees out of alignment with the galactic plane.

As the earth moved up and down it would appear the sun’s equator was moving, when in reality only the observers perspective was changing.

To compound it even further… I wonder if the Sun’s core rotation is aligned with a galactic constant, while it’s outer layer rotation is more affected by the planets, and what we see in outer layer rotation is simply the harmonic pattern between the alignment of the sun to the galactic constant versus planetary rotational tug on the outer layer.

This would mean that the pattern of planets orbiting our sun could cause interaction between the sun’s core and outer layer. These variations would cause solar cycles. And when a planetary alignment occurs it offers more or less correction bringing the sun’s core and outer layer into better or worse alignment.

Is this the reason for the Maunder Minimum? A planetary alignment that resulted in a rotational correction to the sun’s outer layer that was very good.

This would mean it is the width of the planetary alignment that defines potential adjustment, distance which defines the adjustment power, AND the degree of correction (or error) imparted to the sun’s outer layer bringing it into better alignment with the galactic constant?

If you are old enough to remember adjusting points in your car’s distributor it is very similar. The closer you aligned the points to that sweet spot the better the engine ran. It is all a matter of your hand imparting correction to the points. This correlates to the planets constantly adjusting the sun’s “points” in and out of that sweet spot, and some adjustments are better than others.

Since the planets are very cyclic these corrections can be plotted and solar activity predicted. We have noticed the pattern, but have not identified the cause.

Do I have a potential cause?

Sunday, October 7, 2007

Gravitational Changes Are Dangerous

I want to do a mind experiment with you. It is simple math and will only take a minute.

Our solar system orbits the Milky Way galaxy. The “number crunchers” of our age tell us it takes ~225 million years for our solar system to make a single orbit.

We are also told that the orbit oscillates 2.7 times during that orbit above and below the galactic plane (densest part of the galaxy) by 24 degrees latitude.

We are also told that the galactic orbit is elliptical (oval), and that would mean we rotate closer and further away from the galactic core.

Now for the experiment.

If the solar system oscillates above and below the the galactic plane 2.7 times in its orbit, that means it happens every ~83 million years [ (225/2.7=83.3) ].

Now to achieve an oscillation you cross the galactic plane twice. Our solar system crosses once diving down and then once again on the way up to return to the starting point. So this means a galactic plane crossing every 41.6 million years [ 83.3/2=41.6) ].

Alright, now let’s look at Earth’s geologic record which records events in the scale of millions of years. What happens every ~41.6 million years? Let’s look at mass animal extinctions for that is a large pattern and people love to rubber neck disaster.

The above graph depicts mass animal extinctions on Earth and do you notice a pattern of how frequently they happen? Yes, it happens around every ~41.6 million years.

So now we know crossing the galactic equator is dangerous.

But I bet you want to know why it is more dangerous at certain times than at other times.

The answer is quite simple. Our solar system orbits the galaxy in an elliptical (oval) orbit. Sometimes when we cross the galactic plane we are farther from the galactic barycenter (rotational point of the galaxy), but closer to the galactic core (largest concentration of mass) than others.

The closer you are to the galactic core the closer you are to more mass and the more mass the greater the gravitational influence. The more gravitational influence the more it affects Earth’s climate as this additional gravity affects our sun. The more the Earth’s climate varies the more animals go extinct.

It comes down to the chances of walking across a busy highway at 3:00 in the afternoon versus 3:00 in the morning and how that relates to your chances of being run down.

So within that ~225 million year orbit there should be one area of mass extinction where it peaks, where the galactic plane crossings occur when the solar system is closest to the galactic core.

I suppose you can see from the mass animal extinction graph above this works with the ebb and flow of our elliptical galactic orbit. Every ~225 million years mass animal extinctions peak.

The good news is that we just completed that “worst” crossing ~45 million years ago, and we are moving away from it. In ~30 million years there will another mass extinction, but less severe than the last one.

It is as predictable as the sun rising in the morning.

The best part is that these same principles work at both the galactic level and the smaller scale of our solar system which has its own mass and changes in gravity due to variances of the “solar core” and “solar barycenter” (a point just outside the solar core). This makes it possible to predict approximate climate change on Earth.

Thursday, October 4, 2007

Global Cooling Prediction

I took every major planetary alignment in our solar system going back 6,000 years and plotted it against known dramatic temperature changes on Earth. On the chart below to convert “Years BP” to something you understand subtract ~2,000.

Lines represent major planetary alignments

What I find is that every major planetary alignment of the planets resulted in a cooling period on Earth. The critical factor is the alignment degrees and relative distance from the sun that the alignment occurred. If the alignment degrees are less than 11 and the relative distance from the sun is greater than 12 the Earth experiences a dramatic cooling. There are only two exceptions to this finding in my data, and these were periods where the major alignment was either quickly preceded or followed by a minor alignment the two events combined leading to a major drop.

Years in black font were multiple alignments that resulted in major cooling
Note: when the distance is short from the sun it takes multiple events

When you look at many of the cooling periods on the overall temperature chart some are staggered or dramatically stepped. These would correspond to quick minor alignments followed back to back.

The next major alignment is in the year 2040 and if it follows what I have found it will be a dramatic cooling.

This should produce a cooling effect similar to the one in 332 AD, possibly a little steeper for the greater the distance from the sun the alignment occurs the larger the cooling affect on Earth. In 2040 the alignment degrees will be .5 degrees wider, but the relative distance will be 11 greater. A very similar ballpark to 332 AD.

These alignments affect the sun’s energy production as related to sunspots.

If temperatures do drop to the extent predicted it will be very unpleasant.

Monday, October 1, 2007

Global Cooling Just Ahead

Below is a graphic representation of global cooling induced by fewer sunspots.

The above graph depicts sunspot counts for each year. As you can see sunspots nearly ceased just before 1645. This lack of sunspots lead to a little ice age.
Don’t think huge ice age, think long, hard winters, cool summers, and shorter growing seasons. More like a lot of bad winters and crummy summers back to back.

In my theory the planets would have to be aligned just prior to the sunspot cessation and all pulling on the Sun in the same direction for this to happen.

On August 3rd, 1642 this is how the planets were aligned;

August 3, 1642

Imagine the yellow circle is a loose fitting bottle cap and the line is your hand moving forward and rotating the bottle cap. That is exactly what the planets did to the Sun in 1642. It was a shearing force that accelerated the Sun’s rotation on its axis. The force is multiplied when the planets align like this.

Within days/months sunspot activity had ceased on the Sun in 1642 and Earth entered a cooling period. The period is known as the Maunder Minimum, but better known as the “little ice age”.

On September 8th, 2040 the planets will align again in a similar fashion and Earth will once again begin a cooling cycle.

September 8, 2040

In this depiction it is the same bottle cap only you are pulling your hand towards the cap and it spins off. In the solar world since the sun is just spinning free, the energy is imparted to its rotational speed.

How does this stop sunspots? The additional speed makes the sun spin 3-4% faster on its axis. This little bit of energy is all that is needed to stabilize the relationship between the Sun’s inner core and outer shell. When it stabilizes no more sunspots. No sunspots and the Earth cools.

Now the little burst of rotational energy does not last long and the Sun's rotationa slows down again, and Earth starts a new warming cycle.

This cycle repeats over and over, and depending on how the planets line up different levels of rotational energy are imparted to the Sun making some cooling periods a bit longer than others but there are long term patterns of warming and cooling based on planetary motion and alignment.

If nothing else; come 2040 we may be happy to have a marginal greenhouse effect in place to help mitigate the next little ice age.

Sunday, September 30, 2007

Rotation, Butterflies and the Sun

The majority of sunspots produced by our sun happen in a narrow band of latitude along its equator. When charted over time the sunspots depict a butterfly pattern.

Some scientists believe that the sun grew larger during the Maunder Minimum (Little Ice age of 1645) and a bigger sun gave off less heat. The correct observation is that during the Maunder Minimum the sun did grow slightly in size but gave off less radio wave energy.

If you look at my solar chug theory you will learn that every ~2,000 years the planets align within a tight number of degrees. This imparts a gravitational shear to the sun which makes it rotate faster. When it rotates faster centrifugal force makes the outer layers of the sun move away from the inner core. Since we know that sunspots and solar radio waves are produced by the inner core bumping into the outer layer this bumping becomes less frequent when the space between the inner core and outer layer is greater. An increase in rotational speed of 3-4% is all it needs for this to happen.

Keep in mind that centrifugal force will make celestial bodies swell at their equator. Just as the earth is oblate at the equator (though its true shape is not usually depicted) all celestial bodies that rotate are oblate, the sun is no exception.

The faster the sun rotates the more it swells or oblates at its equator.

Since the majority of sunspots are produced along a narrow band along the equator of the sun, when the sun spins faster the core and outer layers are separated more from the inner core by the expanding equatorial oblateness, and the sun appears to swell and and less sunspots are produced.

Over years the suns rotation slows once again and the inner core and outer layers come closer together, they bump more frequently, and more solar radio waves are produced in the butterfly pattern along its equator and a warming period begins.

This all fits possibly with my solar chug theory and periodic warming of the planets in our solar system due to saltwater absorbing radio wave energy.

The suns rotational speed is affected by periodic gravitational shear by planetary alignment imparting rotational energy to the sun.

Solar Rotation

During the last little ice age (Maunder Minimum) the sun was rotating at its equator faster than it is today. My theory; The faster the sun rotates the fewer sunspots it produces and sunspot production is key to planetary warming throughout the entire solar system. More sunspots warming, fewer sunspots cooling.The below scientific paper supports my solar chug theory;

Solar rotation during the Maunder Minimum
J. A. Eddy1, P. A. Gilman1 and D. E. Trotter1(1)
High Altitude Observatory, National Center for Atmospheric Research, 80303 Boulder, Colo., U.S.A.Received: 8 December 1975 Abstract We have measured solar surface rotation from sunspot drawings made in a.d. 1642–1644 and find probable differences from present-day rates. The 17th century sunspots rotated faster near the equator by 3 or 4%, and the differential rotation between 0 and ±20° latitude was enhanced by about a factor 3. These differences are consistent features in both spots and groups of spots and in both northern and southern hemispheres. We presume that this apparent change in surface rotation was related to the ensuing dearth of solar activity (the Maunder Minimum) which persisted until about 1715.
The National Center for Atmospheric Research is sponsored by the National Science Foundation.

  • Earth’s climate change is tied to solar sunspots which produce radio waves which heat saltwater throughout the entire solar system (not just Earth).

  • The sun has cycle/s in which it produces more and fewer sunspots tied to its rotational speed.

  • Changes in the sun’s rotational speed at its equatorial region are a result of gravitational shear imparted by the planets aligning in specific ways and adding spin to the sun through gravitational shear.

  • There are well known tugs by the planets on the sun every 22 years resulting in the 11 year solar cycle

  • I propose there is a larger solar chug (big tug) every 3,993 years which results in a larger 1,997 year solar cycle.

On Earth itself the salinity cycle of the oceans have an effect on their ability to absorb solar radio waves and be heated which further interacts with solar radio wave output of the sun creating a ~1,500 year climatic cycle. Note how closely my 1,997 solar year cycle ties to Earths warming cycle.

The next cooling period will begin September 8th of 2040 when the next major planetary alignment will occur (planets align within 9 degrees) and give the sun a big tug “chug”, increasing its rotational speed by 3 or 4%.

Saturday, September 29, 2007

Solar Chug Theory and Global Warming

I was looking into what I am calling my “solar chug” theory. It is the effect of planetary alignments giving the sun a good pull of gravitational sheer periodically.

I learned;

A page on the web site of the Griffith Observatory (in Los Angeles) notes, among other things, that a very close alignment of the naked-eye planets took place on February 27th, 1953 B.C., in which these five planets were together in a span of 4.3 degrees. No closer alignment has taken place since then. On September 8th of 2040, a fairly close alignment within a space of 9.3 degrees will be observed.

OK, so the sun gets a good yank every 3,993 years by the planets based on the above information from Griffith Observatory. Well the way I do math you would want to split that as to when you would have maximum “chug” and "diminishing chug”.

That would mean you have a “dimishing solar chug” cycle of ~1,997 years. The initial chug results in more solar stability and the increased stability means fewer sunspots. As the effects of the chug wear off you get increased sunspot activity. Think of a top or a gyroscope. When you first pull the string it spins nice and steady, as the rotation slows it begins to wobble a bit. The solar chug I describe stabilizes the sun in a similar fashion to a top which rotational speed could be added to.
The sun starts to wobble putting out more solar radio waves which warms planets with saltwater, then the sun gets a push of gravitational shear via the periodic planetary alignment and that smooths out the suns wobble and dimishes sunspot activity.

In 2040 the planets will align like this and add gravitational shear to the sun;

The ~1,997 years of the diminishing solar chug cycle is very close to the ~1,500 warming and cooling cycle of Earth's climate evidenced by ice cores from Greenland. These processes may be linked.

How do I account for the ~497 year variance in Earth’s climate change to my solar chug theory? I believe I heard a climate scientist from the University of Victoria BC once say… “When you put a pot of water on the stove it takes time to heat up, it does not instantly get hot.” It does not instantly cool either.

I am not sure about this being the solution to the variance in solar chug to Earth’s climatic cycle but it was the only thing the man from UVC said that made sense. He rejected all theories except human responsibility for Earth's climate warming..

We are approaching the next chug in 2040. Does the year ~2040 figure at all into the widely accepted global warming formulas?
Chug, chug. Countdown till next solar chug… 33 years… With luck we will be around to see the cooling cycle begin. (less sunspots, less solar radio waves, less radio wave heating of Earth’s oceans, cooling Earth.)

Most everything I look into supports my climate theory. (below)

Solar Radio Waves Affecting Entire Solar System?

I happened to read the article “Warming On Jupiter, Mars, Pluto, Neptune's Moon & Earth Linked to Increased Solar Activity, Scientists Say “ and I would like to share how my theory on global warming relates to temperature increases on other planets..

Keep in mind it is simply a theory I have developed at this point and is simply part of the larger solar cycle.

Basically everything that the sun emits is the same. The only difference is the wavelength and frequency of the energy. Radio waves have the longest wavelength and gamma rays have the shortest.

Sun's Spectrum of Engergy

We now know thanks to John Kranius that lower frequency radio waves can heat salt water, but do not affect fresh water. We can only assume at this point that the degree of salinity of the water makes it a better target for radio waves to be absorbed and result in heating. The salinity of water affects it density, the greater the density the more radio waves will affect the water.

The saltier the water the more of the sun’s radio wave energy is absorbed, the less saline the water the poorer the energy absorption.

So those solar radio waves will travel along until they are absorbed. They will simply pass through objects that do not conduct or absorb them well. That is why you can listen to a radio inside a wooden house, but radio wave reception fails inside a metal building. The metal skin of the building conducts the radio waves away and absorbs them. This is similar to why a submarine cannot use its radio while submerged. The salt water absorbs the signal.

So we know that a fair chunk of radio energy is hitting the Earth’s oceans from the sun, and the salt water is absorbing the radio waves based on their salinity, and that a byproduct of that absorption is heat. Albeit it is not very much heat for the radio waves are so long (possibly miles in length), but the radio wave energy does not just disappear.

Climate scientists will tell you solar output is rather constant and cannot affect Earth. However, if there is a movement in Earth’s ocean salinity and solar radio wave production, which relates directly to sunspots, there may be a correlation. The energy is there but Earth’s ability to store that solar radio wave energy varies based on ocean salinity.

Keep in mind that solar radio wave output has been on the rise for a number of decades… (sunspots are directly related to solar radio wave production)

In a nutshell…

Oceans at optimum salinity absorb radio wave energy from the sun and are slowly heated. When they heat, the Earth’s climate warms and the polar ice caps melt. The fresh water added to the ocean from the melting ice caps reduces the ocean’s salinity impairing the ability of solar radio waves to heat the oceans. The oceans cool and Earth’s climate cools likewise. With the cooler climate ice pack increases; water evaporates, leaving salts behind, snow falls in Polar Regions making ice pack larger and making the oceans saltier. Saltier oceans then are more efficient at absorbing radio waves and a climatic warming happens. A beautifully balanced climatic equation.

Let’s say that long slow heat cycle takes 1,500 years give or take based on solar radio wave output which can vary a bit. We know from the ice cores from Greenland there is a 1,500 year warming cycle. In addition solar radio wave output has been abnormally high for decades now. More solar radio waves, warmer oceans, warmer climate.

Strangely enough ocean scientists will tell you it takes the oceans ~1,000 to complete a mixing cycle.
Now keep in mind that Mars has large subterranean oceans that were recently discovered by satellites.

I would also assume that the water on Mars is also saltwater and Mars is absorbing more solar radio waves and heating just like Earth. My guess would be that all planets that are heating are gathering energy from solar radio waves based on elements within them that will absorb the solar radio wave energy efficiently.

It is so OBVIOUS! It is like all those other things in science that when you hear them laid out you wonder why it has taken so long to figure it out.

Why does solar output of radio waves vary? Think of the sun as a washing machine. You have the agitator, the drum, and the housing. The sun has more solar flares (higher radio wave output) when it goes out of balance, just like your washing machine dancing around the floor when it goes out of balance. The agitator hits the drum and the whole machine shakes.

And even though the washing machine is dancing around the floor it uses the same amount of energy and the clothes get just as clean. Similarly the sun dances around a bit producing radio waves. The overall luminosity doesn’t vary (still doing the same overall job), but it puts out more radio waves, similar to a washing machine putting out more vibrations when out of balance, but still cleaning the clothes just the same.

The suns inner core rotates at one speed, the outer layer at another, and the poles of the sun rotate at even another speed. It is easy to put that sucker out of balance.

When the sun goes out of balance the inner core bumps up against the outer layers and bingo, bango solar flares (radio waves).

What could possibly put the sun out of balance? Gravitational shear or the lack of it. Sort of like your washing machine again with too much weight on one side. The planets are all pulling on the sun in different directions. At times those gravitational shears align and pull hard simoultaneously in the same direction. Imagine you are standing in a field and four people located at north, south, and east and west toss a lasso around you and pull on their ropes. As long as they all pull equally your footing is stable. Have those four people move into the same quadrant and pull and they impart energy to you. The pulling shear becomes irresistible. Much like a pull start lawnmower.
Now if you want to compare how the planets pull on the sun, versus sunspot activity give this chart a gander; (Think of the blue dotted line as planetary forces and the red line sunspot activity)

I started circling the convergence but hey, what’s the point, you get the idea.

My theory, every planet in the solar system is warming based on higher output of solar radio waves and their ability to absorb that form of energy. The Earth has a climate cycle that is based on the oceans getting fresher and saltier changing their ability to absorb solar radio energy and heat them (or cool them).

I do not know of anyone else who is putting forth this theory but me, but it seems to work very nicely not only here on earth, but all the planets in our solar system.

Sunday, September 23, 2007

Global Warming

Proposed cyclic global warming theory by Thomas Olenio

The recent discoveries by John Kanzius and his finding that radio waves can be used to heat salt water are the seeds for my theory.

My theory; Global warming is intricately tied to ocean salinity and solar flux.

The basic assumption is solar flux (radio waves) marginally heat salt water oceans warming the planet. When salinity levels of the oceans drop due to melting polar ice packs the freshened salt water is less efficient at being heated by solar flux and a cooling period begins.
Recent discoveries by John Kanzius tell us that radio waves heat salt water. Fresh water is unaffected by radio waves. It would be reasonable to assume that there are optimum salinity ranges for salt water to capture radio waves and be heated by them. Only further research in that field will determine these absolute salinity radio wave heat ratios.

My theory in a nutshell;

Radio waves (solar flux) from the sun heat the salt water oceans marginally and slowly. This long period heating melts polar ice pack and ocean salinity is reduced over many hundreds of years. The freshening (reduction in salinity) of the oceans inhibits their ability to be heated by the solar flux and a cooling cycle begins. As ice pack expands the oceans become saltier and at some salinity set point the oceans begin being (or are sufficiently) heated by solar flux from the sun again to begin a warming cycle. To give the cycle a value in years let us assume 1,500 years based on past heating and cooling cycles made evident by ice cores from Greenland.

The oceans being the Earth’s largest heat sinks induce climate change by slowly swinging back and forth between warmer and cooler periods based on the oceans salinity and ability to be heated by solar flux. It doesn’t hurt the theory either that the saltier the water the better it retains heat.

One last bit of evidence. Sunspots are signs of activity on our sun. The more sun spots the more solar flux (radio waves) is output. Fewer solar sun spots and you get less solar flux. In my theory less solar flux would mean Earth cooling for there are no radio waves to heat the salt water oceans.
The last little ice age is anecdotal evidence for my theory. It happened between 1600 and 1700 when sunspot activity on the sun nearly ceased.

No sunspots, no solar flux, no salt water oceanic heating on Earth, and the planet cools and a mini ice age happens. When the sunspots and solar flux returns the earth resumes the heating cooling cycle.
The cycle existed before human CO2 emissions and is still working today;


Massive Salinity Changes In Oceans - Tropical ocean waters have become dramatically saltier over the past 40 years, while oceans closer to Earth's poles have become fresher, scientists report in the journal Nature. These large-scale, relatively rapid oceanic changes suggest that recent climate changes, including global warming, may be altering the fundamental planetary system that regulates evaporation and precipitation and cycles fresh water around the globe. The study was conducted by Ruth Curry of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI)
In my theory the oceans change the climate by heating and cooling based on salinity and solar flux, and not the climate change affecting ocean salinity. It all works very neatly but would need to be explored thoroughly.