- Bliv medlem
-
Log ind
Du er ikke logget ind
Log ind Opret dig - Kurv
Du er ikke logget ind
Beskrivelse
It is not possible for the Sun to be a sphere of hydrogen gas that is powered by nuclear fusion from within. Many epicycles have been invented to make the concept seem plausible. All evidence points to the only possible fact that the Sun is a plasma star that is externally powered with plasma fusion occurring at its surface. The difference between the two models, which are opposite in nature, is enormous. Ironically, the Hydrogen-Sun model, which is not physically possible, is being taught in the schools, while the Plasma Sun model, for which evidence exists, is being hidden from view. The reason may be that it is difficult for people not familiar with plasma physics, to see the universe as a Plasma Universe, even while research reveals that 99.9999% of the mass of the universe exists in the plasma state; in the form of free-flowing protons and electrons. In plasma fusion on the surface of a sun, plasma is combined into atomic elements, with energy being generated in the process. The atoms for all the planets and gases in a solar system are synthesized at the surface of the Sun, which actually powers the solar process. The synthesizing plasma fusion is presently enhanced for our Sun by electromagnetic 'Primer Fields' focusing interstellar plasma onto the Sun in a highly condensed manner. When the plasma-focusing system becomes inactive, below the required threshold conditions, the Sun reverts to a type of cosmic default level with 70% less energy being radiated, and higher rates of solar cosmic-ray flux are being experienced. At the present rate of plasma diminishment being experienced, the solar activity phase-shift threshold to the next Ice Age period may be crossed in 30 years, or in the 2050s, most likely. With the primer-fields system gone inactive by then, the climate on Earth will get 40 times colder than the Little Ice Age in the 1600s had been. Ice core evidence promises that. Without the needed preparations for human living in such an environment, 99% of humanity would die of starvation, both by the cold, and by CO2 depletion that diminishes agriculture, as more CO2 becomes dissolved into the sea. With the 'Primer Fields' being critical for our very existence, the exploration of them is likewise critical. In the Little Ice Age, between 10% and up to 30% of the populations in Europe had perished by starvation. The last Big Ice Age was evidently vastly harsher. Only 1-10 million people emerged from it alive. That's all we had after 2 million years of development. We want to do far better this time around; and we can, with large-scale technological infrastructures for our food supply. But will we create them? Will we get the job done in the 30 years that we still have left before the Ice Age starts anew? Will we even consider it? And how certain are we that the phase shift to the next glaciation period will begin, as the evidence suggests, in the 2050s? We have no slack on this front. Should we fail us on this absolute front, we would be committing suicide. Numerous fields of evidence tell us that the next Ice Age is near. That's where the truth begins. Most of the evidence was discovered in the 1990s and thereafter. Some evidence is measured in ice cores; some is measured in space, by satellites. Some measurements are also made on the ground in terms of measurements of the Earth's magnetic-pole drift observed in northern Canada. All of this is seen combined with high-energy physics experiments at a leading national laboratory, and is also explored in the small in static experiments. So, what will the answer be? Will we move with the evidence? Or will we lay ourselves down to die by default?
