The Cycle of Cosmic Catastrophes:
Flood, Fire, and Famine in
the History of Civilization
by Richard Firestone,
Allen West,
Simon Warwick-Smith
Posted on 08/22/2007 12:00:43 PM PDT by Kevmo
If we fired every crackpot who was nonetheless doing the job expected of him just because he’s a crackpot, nobody would hold any job for long.
The Cycle of Cosmic Catastrophes:
Flood, Fire, and Famine in
the History of Civilization
by Richard Firestone,
Allen West,
Simon Warwick-Smith
 |
||
| · join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · | ||
Earth Under FireAt the closing of the last ice age our ancient ancestors endured one of the most lethal global catastrophes to have occurred in the course of human history. Intelligent minds of those times thought it imperative to construct a message that would endure through time and be understood by the descendants of those who survived. Employing sophisticated cryptographic puzzle techniques similar to those modern astronomers use in designing extraterrestrial communications, they created a time capsule message that described the elusive celestial cause of this tragic disaster, alerting us that it could recur at long intervals and arrive at Earth's doorstep virtually without warning.
by Paul A. LaViolette
This ancient cipher is today displayed in the heavens in the form of the 12 zodiac constellations (Greek / Egyptian / Babylonian versions), its informational content having been passed down orally in the lore of astrology. Also certain esoteric keys were handed down to help unlock its message, the Sphinx being one and the Tarot being the other.
This is not science fiction. The important archaeological discovery of this ancient cipher was first made in the mid to late 1970's at Portland State University by systems scientist and astronomer Dr. Paul A. LaViolette.
I just can't help myself...hahahahahahahahahahahah!
Paul LaViolette, Ph.D Presents "THE TALK OF THE GALAXY" Video Presentation
Communicating extraterrestrial civilizations would want to make their signals complex and highly ordered to ensure they are not mistaken as radio emissions from natural objects. Pulsars fit this criterion as they are generally recognized as having the most highly ordered and complex radio signal patterns of any phenomenon known to astronomy. LaViolette also speaks about the message these beacons are conveying. He suggests they are attempting to inform us about a barrage of cosmic rays emitted by an ex-plosion of our Galaxy's core and passed our solar system 14,000 years ago.
Yeah, I know what you mean. :’)
I found a couple of RAM files (Realplayer) from 1999 in a folder called “LaViolette” on my hard drive (not surprisingly, in a part of the hard drive over 10,000 years old). I started listening to the first one, turns out to be from a 1996 broadcast (or webcast) of the (now defunct) International Tesla Society, and has LaViolette and McGinnis gettin’ jiggy with stuff.
Excellent catch.
I can see how you would arrive at 1/100 galaxies because supposedly there would be an “explosion” lasting 100 years every 10,000 years, so 100/10,000 = 1/100, basically at any point in time we should see about 1% of these galaxies in the middle of an “explosion”.
This is weird stuff, because if our galaxy “exploded” 10k years ago, how did we survive? It’s not “really” an explosion, it’s probably something more akin to an aggressive outward growth cycle or somesuch thing. If my house exploded for one month out of every 100 months, I’d have to rebuild it every 9 years or so. But if it suffers an expansion cycle 1/100 of the time, then I might see or hear some of the effects, such as crackling or creaky noises in the morning or afternoon when the sun starts or stops shining on it. And yeah, that’s what I hear, but I wouldn’t call that an “explosion”.
Here’s what I don’t understand — why does this subquantum kinetic theory get pushed into this corner? What is it that drives the theory to say that such a thing needs to happen? I don’t know enough to see why this would be so.
Heard this morning that earth is expanding a foot a year. This is not true. It is expanding a foot a million years. Scientists who have actual offices in science buildings have ways to detect which of their companions, who may have actual doctorates, are crackpots. It’s not a question of being brainy; something else is going on.
Thanks for the link. Frame dragging would be observable on the order of 1 in 10^12, whereas the Podkletnov/Modanese claim seems to show up observable on the order of 2% of gravitational force or 1 in 10^2.
Here’s what I think: Adding in Electrostatic effects somehow increases the observability. And since it’s such a quirky force, it’s hard to verify it. So we see it pop up in the Podkletnov/Modanese experiments, Dr. Ning Li’s results, Thomas Townsend Brown’s experiments, even perhaps in the cold fusion fiasco. These scientists are playing right on the edge of what is considered a pseudoscience, electrogravitics.
And lo and behold, we see Dr. LaViolette on the Electrogravitics page for wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrogravitics
These electrohydrodynamic devices produce thrust in the air using electrical energy without moving parts. Paul LaViolette continues to champion and publish Brown’s hypotheses and ideas derived from them.
Here’s a fascinating timeline:
http://www.americanantigravity.com/articles/500/1/Superconductors-and-Antigravity-—A-Timeline/Page1.html
September, 2002: NASA scientists Glen “Tony” Robertson and Ron Koczor report experimental failure in testing Podkletnov’s original rotating-superconductor experiment. The experiment required the rotation of a $600,000 superconductor built by SCI-Engineered Materials up to 5,000 rpm. NASA was concerned about explosive decomposition from the high-velocity, and abandoned the test at only 200 rpm, calling it a failure.
October, 1999: Ning Li forms AC Gravity, LLC – a University of Huntsville funded startup to investigate the potential for superconductive gravity-modification. Writer Philip Gentry documents her efforts in “Taming Gravity”; including claims by colleagues that they are leaving the University join her startup.
May, 2003: Dr. Ning Li sends a private email to colleagues claiming to have experimentally verified a large-scale AC-Gravity measuring “11-kilowatts of output effect”, and abruptly disappears from public view. (this is her last known public communication)
I suppose even a cracked pot can tell time twice a day... to mix metaphors.
This guy LaViolette really is weird. It’s easy to see why mainstream science would shun him.
If he has a doctorate he must have been more or less mainstream about some things at some point. It’s hard to fake your way through advanced math.
In post #36 there really isn’t enough information from the excerpt.
Here’s where the full text can be accessed. It’s 28 pages and we already have FReepers complaining about too much information, so I’m only including the links.
http://esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/gsp/Experimental_Detection.pdf
This stuff is propogating throughout the Internet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Podkletnov
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitoelectromagnetism
Gravity Modification Breakthrough Announced by ESA March 2006:
Experimental Detection of the Gravitomagnetic London Moment
Towards a New Test of General Relativity?
23 March 2006
Scientists funded by the European Space Agency have measured the gravitational equivalent of a magnetic field for the first time in a laboratory. Under certain special conditions the effect is much larger than expected from general relativity and could help physicists to make a significant step towards the long-sought-after quantum theory of gravity.
Just as a moving electrical charge creates a magnetic field, so a moving mass generates a gravitomagnetic field. According to Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity, the effect is virtually negligible. However, Martin Tajmar, ARC Seibersdorf Research GmbH, Austria; Clovis de Matos, ESA-HQ, Paris; and colleagues have measured the effect in a laboratory.
Their experiment involves a ring of superconducting material rotating up to 6,500 times a minute. Superconductors are special materials that lose all electrical resistance at a certain temperature. Spinning superconductors produce a weak magnetic field, the so-called London moment.
The new experiment tests a conjecture by Tajmar and de Matos that explains the difference between high-precision mass measurements of Cooper-pairs (the current carriers in superconductors) and their prediction via quantum theory.
They have discovered that this anomaly could be explained by the appearance of a gravitomagnetic field in the spinning superconductor (This effect has been named the Gravitomagnetic London Moment by analogy with its magnetic counterpart).
Small acceleration sensors placed at different locations close to the spinning superconductor, which has to be accelerated for the effect to be noticeable, recorded an acceleration field outside the superconductor that appears to be produced by gravitomagnetism.
“This experiment is the gravitational analogue of Faraday’s electromagnetic induction experiment in 1831. It demonstrates that a superconductive gyroscope is capable of generating a powerful gravitomagnetic field, and is therefore the gravitational counterpart of the magnetic coil. Depending on further confirmation, this effect could form the basis for a new technological domain, which would have numerous applications in space and other high-tech sectors,” says de Matos.
Although just 100 millionths of the acceleration due to the Earth’s gravitational field, the measured field is a surprising one hundred million trillion times larger than Einstein’s General Relativity predicts. Initially, the researchers were reluctant to believe their own results.
Gravitomagnetic induction of gravitational fields
“We ran more than 250 experiments, improved the facility over 3 years and discussed the validity of the results for 8 months before making this announcement. Now we are confident about the measurement,” says Tajmar, who performed the experiments and hopes that other physicists will conduct their own versions of the experiment in order to verify the findings and rule out a facility induced effect.
In parallel to the experimental evaluation of their conjecture, Tajmar and de Matos also looked for a more refined theoretical model of the Gravitomagnetic London Moment. They took their inspiration from superconductivity.
The electromagnetic properties of superconductors are explained in quantum theory by assuming that force-carrying particles, known as photons, gain mass. By allowing force-carrying gravitational particles, known as the gravitons, to become heavier, they found that the unexpectedly large gravitomagnetic force could be modelled.
“If confirmed, this would be a major breakthrough,” says Tajmar, “it opens up a new means of investigating general relativity and it consequences in the quantum world.”
The results were presented at a one-day conference at ESA’s European Space and Technology Research Centre (ESTEC), in the Netherlands, 21 March 2006.
Two papers detailing the work are now being considered for publication. The papers can be accessed on-line at the Los Alamos pre-print server using the references: gr-qc/0603033 and gr-qc/0603032.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
