View previous topic :: View next topic |
Ishmael

In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
KRAKATOA
Earth & Sky
On August 27th, 1883, Krakatoa exploded. The Volcano had been active for several months prior to its climactic end, with the final events beginning on August 26th. So powerful was the explosion of the following day, it obliterated the island---the bulk of it was shot into the upper atmosphere where the suspended dust and gas are said to have impacted climate for a number of years.
The eruption of Krakatoa is the most powerful volcanic event recorded in human history. Nearly 40,000 human souls were extinguished in the disaster.
Yet the eruption of unprecedented proportion that was Krakatoa was not the only event of such magnitude to have occurred that month. Amazingly, another force of even greater destructive potential is now alleged to have threatened the planet that same year and month of August 1883 and only blind luck prevented the deaths of a far larger proportion of the Earth's population.
Earlier that month, in an observatory in Mexico, a lone astronomer spotted a group of extra-terrestrial objects---more than 400 in total---passing in front of the Sun. He didn't know it but what he saw through his telescope, as is now alleged by some who have studied the matter, was a force so powerful it might have wiped human civilization from the face of planet earth; for each dot he counted in the sky represented a commetary fragment of up to a kilometer in diameter. Any one of these, had it struck the Earth, would have exploded with the force of a Krakatoa. But so close was the cloud that the Earth avoided collision with the entire scattered mass by only the narrowest of margins.
Each event was unprecedented in impact or potential and, in impact or potential, remains unsurpassed. Yet both occurred that same August of 1883.
As every Applied Epistemologist is aware, this synchronicity can be no coincidence.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Ishmael

In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
Of course, we might suggest that the Mexican Astronomer was mistaken. After all, the commetary threat went unnoticed by observers at other latitudes. Yet this explanation is perhaps the least probable of any we might offer; for an astronomer might have mistakenly glimpsed the most monumental astronomical cataclysm in human history at any point in time. That this error might have been made in the same month in which actually occurred the greatest volcanic cataclysm in human history would be a coincidence of astronomical proportion.
On the other hand, it must be acknowledged that the coincidence of the astronomical error with the Krakatoa event does have a logical explanation---if the latter caused the former.
Krakatoa had been erupting for some months prior to its ultimate self-immolation. It is within the realm of probability that some ejecta had been thrown into the upper atmosphere by some earlier volcanic burp and that this particulate matter produced the illusion of commetary fragments in the eyes of one earthly observer.
Perhaps we must reach this conclusion. For if we do not, only one possibility remains. The eruption of Krakatoa was triggered from outer space.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Tilo Rebar

In: Sussex
|
|
|
|
Ishmael wrote: | As every Applied Epistemologist is aware, this synchronicity can be no coincidence. |
Agreed, it would have been an improbable, although not impossible.
A third event, a very bright blood-red NH aurora display happened over New York on April 16, 1882. This indicates a very large solar coronal mass ejection occurred, with much ejecta being blasted into space from the sun's equatorial region, right at the peak of the solar activity cycle.
As the solar system is open to influences from the rest of the universe, it is likely that some external force affected both sun and our planet and it is this that caused them both to eject mass into space from close to their equatorial regions.
The Earth erupted after the sun, due to the dense crust taking longer to breach than that of the less dense sun.
Same effect - same cause.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
|
|
|
|
Let us not forget, however, that SLOT predicts (sort of) that the greatest earthquakes will occur along the previous Catastrophe Zone ie the Indonesian Islands ie the site of Krakatoa.
Although this does not rule out extra-terrestrial forces triggering weaknesses in the Catastrophe Zone, AE principles would tend to militate against. However, the earlier 'burps' might support this scenario.
Surely though, if these passing asteroids (or whatever) were indeed capable of such action-at-a-distance, more than one terrestrial eruption would have taken place. Unless again the burps were priming the one nearest to bursting.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Ishmael

In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
Tilo Rebar wrote: | A third event, a very bright blood-red NH aurora display happened over New York on April 16, 1882. |
That's more than a year out of sync. I see no reason to link this third event with the other two. However, if you read my Sunspots thread, you will see that I agree with you that the phenomenon may derive from the same type of causes.
How rare is such an aurora display? You might say it is rare over New York but what of other places at the same latitude? Or the mirror latitude south of the equator.
I haven't sufficient data to estimate the rarity of this occurrence.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Ishmael

In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
Mick Harper wrote: | Surely though, if these passing asteroids (or whatever) were indeed capable of such action-at-a-distance, more than one terrestrial eruption would have taken place. Unless again the burps were priming the one nearest to bursting. |
Or the Earth's crust gives way at its weakest point, wherever that may be (and whatever force it is that causes the crust to be weakened).
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Chad

In: Ramsbottom
|
|
|
|
Ishmael wrote: | I haven't sufficient data to estimate the rarity of this occurrence. |
http://www.solarstorms.org/SRefStorms.html
Not so rare...
There was another major one in November 1882, but then things became quiet for rather a long while.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Boreades

In: finity and beyond
|
|
|
|
If we take an Electric Universe approach, our Sun and each of the planets will form tuned circuits (of some kind). Mostly stable but prone to unstable oscillations when they get spurious inputs. Like solar flares.
If the Earth's core is molten magnetic metal, any unstable electromagnetic oscillations will surely cause some mass displacements?
See Faraday's Law, etc.
How massive would the asteroids/comets/whatever have to be to have an effect as well?
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Tilo Rebar

In: Sussex
|
|
|
|
Ishmael wrote: | That's more than a year out of sync. I see no reason to link this third event with the other two... |
It is linked as an indication that the sun was absorbing more energy from space and was therefore very active around a year before it blasted the ~400 bolloids (or one large one which fragmented) from its equatorial region.
I suspect that the Earth too was absorbing extra energy and heating the magma deep within, which finally resulted in the Krakatoa eruption - this being a known weak area of the crust.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Ishmael

In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
Tilo Rebar wrote: | I suspect that the Earth too was absorbing extra energy and heating the magma deep within, which finally resulted in the Krakatoa eruption - this being a known weak area of the crust. |
Sorry. But you are not behaving as an Applied Epistemologist.
Demonstrate the chain of probabilities that lead you to this conclusion. Who knows but you might be right, but you must show me that earthly volcanic activity coincides with solar activity or you haven't a leg to stand on.
You are indulging in speculation.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Tilo Rebar

In: Sussex
|
|
|
|
Ishmael wrote: | ...You are indulging in speculation. |
Correct, I am indeed in the realms of conjecture - hence the word 'suspect'.
Current mainstream theory is useless when it comes to answering simple fundamental questions about the solar system.
For example there is no logical explanation from solar physicists as to why activity is cyclical, following an ~11 year quasi-cycle.
No sensible reason as to why the Earth, which is estimated at 4.5 billion years old, still has a very hot interior. Interestingly the KTB super-deep borehole reached temperatures of more than 260 °C when only 5.7 miles deep - far hotter than had been expected by the geophysicists.
So it is likely an energy source external to the solar system could affect solar activity and seismic activity on Earth.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Ishmael

In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
Tilo Rebar wrote: | For example there is no logical explanation from solar physicists as to why activity is cyclical, following an ~11 year quasi-cycle. |
Correction. There is no convincing evidence from solar physicists as to whether [solar] activity is cyclical, following an ~11 year quasi-cycle.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Ishmael

In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
Tilo Rebar wrote: | So it is likely an energy source external to the solar system could affect solar activity and seismic activity on Earth. |
Likely?
You identify an anomaly and then, without need for logical deduction, invent an explanation.
This violates two or three principles of Applied Epistemology. Most notably, Applied Epistemology forbids us any appeal to speculative forces or factors, the existence of which has not yet been demonstrated.
This is one of the big errors of the modern scientific establishment. Scientists discover a phenomenon they can't immediately explain with the tools at hand, so they invent a new force that, were it to exist, might account for the phenomenon. Thereafter, they appeal to the reality of the phenomenon as evidence for the existence of the force.
Applied Epistemologists are not allowed any inventions. We must explain what we see using materials and forces already demonstrated.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
|
|
|
|
Tilo Rebar wrote:
For example there is no logical explanation from solar physicists as to why activity is cyclical, following an ~11 year quasi-cycle.
Correction. There is no convincing evidence from solar physicists as to whether [solar] activity is cyclical, following an ~11 year quasi-cycle. |
While we're on the subject of AE principles, one reads as follows:
As soon as a cycle is identified, it ceases to function. |
You can ask me why this is if you can't guess.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|