I found this beautiful image of the asteroid Lutetia on The Planetary Society Blog (Color Portrait of Asteroid 21 Lutetia by Emily Lakdawalla, Jul. 21, 2010) that was captured by Rosetta on July 10, 2010. As you can see it has a beautiful and unusual color. I was particularly struck by the following comment:
When he sent me the image, Ted remarked to me something that I’d been thinking: “That is one funky crater on the terminator. I would probably suspect it was of something other than impact origin if it was on, say, the Moon.” I totally agree. It’s just not the right symmetrical shape, and it has a weird round lip at its edge, and that dark halo above it. I’ve got no idea what it is, but it doesn’t look like the other craters.
This is astounding:
From the article ..
Sun Unleashes ‘Spectacular’ & Powerful Eruption
The solar storm hit its peak at about 2:41 a.m. EDT (0641 GMT), but the actual flare extended over a three-hour period, said C. Alex Young, a solar astrophysicist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center who runs a website called The Sun Today, in a video describing the event.
“The sun produced a quite spectacular prominence eruption that had a solar flare and high-energy particles associated with it, but I’ve just never seen material released like this before,” Young said. “It looks like somebody just kicked a giant clod of dirt into the air and then it fell back down.”
For some fascinating discussion on this beautiful and awe-inspiring event go here.
This is an absolutely stunning image that you can find here. For some interesting commentary on the Antennae Galaxies from an Electric Universe perspective, check out Thunderbolts Picture Of the Day. Enjoy
I have been following the work of Wal Thornhill by reading the excellent posts at his website, The Electric Universe. While you are there, you can follow the links to Thunderbolts .. where you can find this excellent article. Of particular interest to me were his references to Ralph Juergens and the following quote:
The idea of turbulent convection delivering endless loads of energy upward from the unseen depths of the Sun conflicts not only with the ordered structure of the photosphere but also with the observable integrity of individual granules. The nodules of plasma appear, endure for some minutes, then fade away… Minnaert once published an analysis of photospheric behavior in terms of the Reynolds number. He found the critical value to lie near 103. The actual Reynolds number of the photosphere, as calculated from observable characteristics of the plasma, turned out to be in excess of 1011, which is to say, at least 100 million times greater than the critical value. Clearly, then, any convective motion in the photosphere should be violently turbulent and highly disordered, as Minnaert indeed pointed out. Practically in his next breath, however, Minnaert asserted that ‘The variable forms of the granules and their short lifetimes are evidence of nonstationary convection.’ Such an abrupt about-face is startling. Apparently Minnaert, himself, was disquieted; he immediately set out to minimize his non sequitur by suggesting ways and means for disregarding the classical theory of turbulence to make things come out right for the photosphere.
- Ralph E. Juergens.
I found this at the excellent Thunderbolts site, their latest Picture of the Day. What you see is an image of the Crab Nebula taken by the Chandra X-Ray Observatory, revealing what is described as “astonishing structure and energy levels”.
We are constantly being bludgeoned about the head with the notion that the universe is dominated by gravity and that electrical currents and magnetic fields (which are only 40 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity) have no significant influence on stars, galaxies, pulsars, etc. As you can tell from the above image, this is emphatically not the case. My favorite takeaway from this article is the following (emphasis mine):
A neutron star has so much matter squeezed into it that the electrons have been squeezed into the nucleus to combine with the protons there and form neutrons. The uncharged neutrons are then packed together, as congested as commuters at rush hour. The pulsations of the pulsar are attributed to a hot spot on its surface that sends a flash of radiation with each rotation of the star. Its operation is analogous to a lighthouse light, back when such lights were mechanically rotating devices, before they were converted to electrically pulsed lamps.
The Crab Nebula’s pulsar pulses 30 times a second. This would mean that the star rotates 30 times a second. This would mean that the centrifugal force is stronger than the star’s gravity … which would mean that the star tore itself apart a long time ago, except that consensus opinion crammed in additional matter to bump up the mass sufficiently to increase the gravitational force enough to hold it together.
The standard model of comets has taken some hits. A Deep Impact, you might say:
Keep your eye on the sky tonight – if you do you might be able to see an intense auroral display as the plasma from an intense CME (coronal mass ejection) arrives to interact with the Earth’s geomagnetic field. Concerns over possible damage to satellites and electrical infrastructure appear to have been downgraded. The possibility still exists that skywatchers at lower latitudes will be able to witness the ‘northern lights’.
The Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC) reported that instruments aboard NASA’s GOES-13 satellite have begun recording the effects of the storm as it nears Earth. The flare seen on video below is known as a coronal mass ejection, or CME. It occurred on Sunday morning as the sun appears to to waking up from it’s extended solar minimum. This latest calm period set a few records, including a 50-year low in solar wind pressure, a 12-year low in solar irradiance (or brightness), and a 55-year low in solar radio emissions.
Here’s an excellent article from The Electric Universe:
The Black Hole at the Heart of Astronomy
The thoughtless followers of Einstein have fashioned God in their own image as a mathematician but “He” is much smarter and avoids high school howlers like the gravitational “black hole.” Yes, a theoretical “black hole” exists—and it sucks the very heart out of astronomy and astrophysics. The astronomer Halton Arp articulated the math howler of dividing by zero to give a near infinite concentration of mass in a hypothetical black hole:“Since the force of gravity varies as the square of the inverse distance between objects why not make the ultimate extrapolation and let the distance go to zero? You get a LOT of density. Maybe it goes BOOM! But wait a minute, maybe it goes in the opposite direction and goes MOOB! Whatever. Most astronomers decided anyway that this was the only source that could explain the observed jets and explosions in galaxies.”
Precisely! And when the gravitational force is as close to zero as doesn’t matter, in comparison to the electric force, you must be very careful (as any high school student knows) to not divide by zero, otherwise you introduce infinities. What does it mean for the radius of a physical object to tend to zero?
In the face of discordant data, a scientist is required to check the original works and assumptions that lead to the theory under test. But there are very few such scientists in this modern age. As Sir Fred Hoyle put it, today the pressure is on to “do what aging gurus tell them to do, which is nothing”and simply build on the consensus those gurus have established. A fellow Australian, Stephen Crothers, has shown mathematical theorists to be remarkably unintelligent and sloppy in the application of their talent to physical problems. It seems that most of them don’t really follow the mathematical arguments anyway (which is not surprising) but are happy to extol the results of others, based on reputation, regardless of the principles of physics or commonsense. Crothers has done his historical and mathematical homework and delivered a paper, The Schwarzschild solution and its implications for gravitational waves, at the Conference of the German Physical Society, Munich, March 9-13, 2009. He concludes, inter alia, that:
• “Schwarzschild’s solution” is not Schwarzschild’s solution. Schwarzschild’s actual solution does not predict black holes. The quantity ‘r’ appearing in the so-called “Schwarzschild solution” is not a distance of any kind. This simple fact completely subverts all claims for black holes.
• Despite claims for discovery of black holes, nobody has ever found a black hole; no infinitely dense point-mass singularity and no event horizon have ever been found. There is no physical evidence for the existence of infinitely dense point-masses.
• It takes an infinite amount of observer time to verify the presence of an event horizon, but nobody has been and nobody will be around for an infinite amount of time. No observer, no observing instruments, no photons, no matter can be present in a spacetime that by construction contains no matter.
• The black hole is fictitious and so there are no black hole generated gravitational waves. The international search for black holes and their gravitational waves is ill-fated.
• The Michell-Laplace dark body is not a black hole. Newton’s theory of gravitation does not predict black holes. General Relativity does not predict black holes. Black holes were spawned by (incorrect) theory, not by observation. The search for black holes is destined to find none.
• No celestial body has ever been observed to undergo irresistible gravitational collapse. There is no laboratory evidence for irresistible gravitational collapse. Infinitely dense point-mass singularities howsoever formed cannot be reconciled with Special Relativity, i.e. they violate Special Relativity, and therefore violate General Relativity.
• General Relativity cannot account for the simple experimental fact that two fixed bodies will approach one another upon release. There are no known solutions to Einstein’s field equations for two or more masses and there is no existence theorem by which it can even be asserted that his field equations contain latent solutions for such configurations of matter. All claims for black hole interactions are invalid.
• Einstein’s gravitational waves are fictitious; Einstein’s gravitational energy cannot be localised; so the international search for Einstein’s gravitational waves is destined to detect nothing. No gravitational waves have been detected.
• Einstein’s field equations violate the experimentally well-established usual conservation of energy and momentum, and therefore violate the experimental evidence.
In an audience of theoretical physicists there was stunned silence—and not a single question.
A final official word on black holes from the Astronomer Royal who follows an unenviable tradition of holders of that office being completely wrong and retarding progress:
“Black holes, the most remarkable consequences of Einstein’s theory, are not just theoretical constructs. There are huge numbers of them in our Galaxy and in every other galaxy, each being the remnant of a star and weighing several times as much as the Sun. There are much larger ones, too, in the centers of galaxies. Near our own galactic center, stars are orbiting ten times faster than their normal speeds within a galaxy.” —Martin Rees, Our Cosmic Habitat(2001).
Electrically Modified Newtonian Dynamics (EMOND): "dimensional constants like G should not appear in the laws of physics"
Here’s an excerpt from an excellent article by Wal Thornhill at The Electric Universe. My favorite quote is “The question should be, “why do we think that physicists know anything about gravity beyond mathematical descriptions of its observed effects?”” I’ve often thought that myself. A mathematical description, no matter how beautiful it seems to it’s creator or how beloved it is by it’s adherents, is not an explanation.
Electrically Modified Newtonian Dynamics (EMOND)
In 1983 Mordehai Milgrom of the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel proposed a modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND) to describe galactic motions. As explained in Electric Galaxies, the motion of galaxies is not gravity dominated. MOND may not be necessary for galaxies. However, some form of MOND is needed to explain stable planetary motion within the solar system.
Conventional celestial mechanics never thinks of the mass of a planet as a variable. However, if the electrical charge on a planet can directly affect its apparent mass to a significant degree, a new and important consideration is introduced to celestial mechanics. Newton’s well-known gravitational equation has the force (F) between the Sun and a planet as
F = GMm/r2 where
G = the ‘constant’ of gravitation,
M = mass of the Sun,
m = the mass of the planet, and
r = the distance of the planet from the Sun.
However, G is measured at the Earth’s surface and used in this equation for the Sun and every other planet. It is simply assumed that G is universal and has the same value for all celestial bodies.
G has the peculiar dimensions of length cubed, divided by mass and by time squared ([L]3/[M][T]2). A. K. T. Assis argues that dimensional constants like G should not appear in the laws of physics. They “must depend on cosmological or microscopic properties of the universe.”  Garcia-Berro et al state, “Questioning the constancy of fundamental parameters is essentially trying to understand a more fundamental theory behind.” 
We conceal our ignorance of any underlying physical mechanism by tolerating dimensional constants. If mass is an electrical variable, G cannot be constant. Assuming G to be universal as well gives rise to calculated masses and densities of celestial bodies that lead to further conjectures cantilevered upon the already dubious assumptions. Stellar and planetary structure and composition are based upon this erroneous conviction. For example, by using G, measured on Earth, the planet Saturn appears to have a lower density than water!
Strong circumstantial evidence for a different gravitational ‘constant’ for each body at different times comes from the difficulty of establishing its value on Earth. ‘G’ is the most inconstant of physical constants.  The small variations in measurements in modern times are dwarfed by evidence from prehistory. Early dinosaur discoveries forced scientists to conclude that the gigantic animals must have been waders to offset their crushing weight with the buoyancy of water. However, fossil footprints show them as fleet-footed land animals — an impossibility in Earth’s present gravity. “The force of gravity at the surface of the earth must have been very much lower than it is today.”  Whatever happened to the dinosaurs was far more dramatic than climate change from a puny asteroid impact. …
This is taken in toto from http://www.eioba.com/a85528/torsion_fields_theory_of_physical_vacuum_shipov_and_heim:
Short Introduction for Humanist
Why has Shipov so exasperated the strict, mistrustful scientific world? Even the subject of his research, “mysterious torsion fields”, is like a nail in the shoe of physicists, very inconvenient! But, scientists today are recognizing that “spinning fields” really do exist. Just as electromagnetic fields are caused by a charge and gravitational fields are caused by weight, torsion fields are created by any rotating objects.
This idea was first introduced by the French mathematician R. Cartan in 1913, then by Albert Einstein. Within the framework of Cartan-Einstein theory, the existence of these fields has been permitted. But, they are weak, cannot be observed, and seem to have no practical application. Shipov states the opposite. This is connected to his theory of physical vacuum and the “mysterious ether” Newton wrote about. For the last 30-40 years, scientists have been trying to analyze the properties of physical vacuum, although from an electromagnetic or gravitational approach.
Similar Heim theory is a collection of ideas about the fundamental laws of physics proposed by Burkhard Heim and further developed by Walter Dröscher and Jochem Häuser. Most of their original work and the subsequent theories based on it have not been peer reviewed. Heim attempted to resolve incompatibilities between quantum theory and general relativity. To meet that goal, he developed a mathematical approach based on quantizing spacetime itself, and proposed the “metron” as a (two-dimensional) quantum of (multidimensional) space. Part of the theory is formulated in terms of difference operators; Heim called the mathematical formalism “Selector calculus”.
The mathematics behind Heim’s theory requires extending spacetime with extra dimensions; various formulations by Heim and his successors involve six, eight, or twelve dimensions. Within the quantum spacetime of Heim theory, elementary particles are represented as “hermetry forms” or multidimensional structures of space. Heim has claimed that his theory yields particle masses directly from fundamental physical constants and that the resulting masses are in agreement with experiment. However, this claim is disputed. For Heim, this composite nature was an expression of internal, six-dimensional structure. After his death, others have continued with his multi-dimensional “quantum hyperspace” framework. Most notable are the theoretical generalizations put forth by Walter Dröscher, who worked in collaboration with Heim at some length. Their combined theories are also known as “Heim-Droescher” theories.
According to the story, Burkhard Heim was a reclusive, disabled German scientist who worked entirely outside the usual framework of physics, and between 1952 and 1959 developed a new theory of elementary particles and gravity. Unfortunately, his main publication was a self-published book, available only in German, plus a few articles (also in German) written in a journal about aerodynamics. As a result of the inaccessibility of his papers in English, his use of nonstandard mathematical notation that he invented himself, and the fact that he was very secretive about details of his work, his work was almost unknown in the community of physics. This changed in 2002, shortly after Heim’s death, when Walter Dröscher, and Jochem Häuser began to publish papers based on Heim’s work, claiming that his alternate theory of gravity allowed for the possibility of antigravity and faster than light propulsion.
Torsion field, also called axion field, spin field, spinor field, and microlepton field is a scientific concept loosely based on Einstein-Cartan theory and some unorthodox solutions of Maxwell’s equations. The torsion field concept was conceived in the Soviet Union by a group of great physicists in the 1980s. The group, led by Anatoly Akimov and Gennady Shipov, began the research as the state-sponsored Center for Nontraditional Technologies.
Everything is made of vacuum. Its energy gives birth to, penetrates, and feeds the whole world of existence. Clever scientists know this, but only smile skeptically. New representations of the nature of physical vacuum do not fit the picture of the world created by classical science. But, the idea of the Great Emptiness, the Dao, was known in China 5000 years ago. Today, this idea is promising a cataclysm in natural science, technology, and all spheres of life. Along comes Shipov with his formulas. His equations of physical vacuum explain and unite all types of interactions present in nature. These formulas should help provide unexpectedly new and unusual answers in a number of areas- transport, communications, medicine, etc. The solutions are so improbable that they are difficult to believe.
Unlike the mechanism attributed to quantum spin effects, the torsion fields involve the use of long-range (Pauli) classical spinners to describe such interactions. Here, focus is not on the Dirac equation to describe fermion spin, but on a classical analogue, the Bargmann-Michel-Telegedi (BMT) equation to account for spin effects. BMT follows from a quasi-classical extension of the Dirac equation with an added Pauli term, and has been responsible for accounting for the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron, and confirms the effect of radiative self-polarisation, both without the necessity for the standard application of quantum electrodynamics.
Torsion fields also have the important characteristic of being affected by the specific topology/geometry of macroscopic objects and biological fields, a feature which has been corroborated by the work of Glen Rein on DNA irradiated by non-Hertzian energy emanating from various geometric patterns. Torsion fields have been found, by Dr. Buryl Payne, to emanate from living organisms, included humans, cats, dogs, horses, plants, and fruits. They can be detected by a simple device he invented, called the “Biofield Meter”, which can be constructed by anyone in an hour from household materials.
The Wright brothers, Goddard, Edison, Pons & Fleischmann and many others had two things in common: First, they were leaders in their fields (they had few, if any, peers) and second, they had detractors. Not only detractors, but highly-educated, professional detractors. These critics were experts anxious to demonstrate their superior knowledge that heavier-than-air craft were impractical, that rocket ships could not fly in a vacuum (“nothing to push against”); light bulbs were not practical; and low-energy nuclear reactions were not possible. Now come Torsion Fields and the skeptics and the detractors will have a field day!
Physicists are well aware of the existence of energy fields with properties which are not explained by the classical equations of Maxwell or Schr”dinger. Experimental anomalies associated with so-called free energy research may also involve non-classical energy fields, referred to here as quantum fields. Recent findings in biology indicate that certain bio-molecules act as superconductors and biological systems in general exhibit non-local, global properties, which are consistent with their ability to function at the quantum level. The possibilities that such anomalous behavior might be accounted for by the presence of endogenous quantum fields in biological systems have received little attention.
Torsion fields have been studied by several groups of Russian scientists for at least three decades and most of that time in secret. What are torsion fields? According to A. Akimov, these fields come in at least three types: E-fields, S-fields, and G-fields. The E, S, and G stand for Electric, Spin, and Gravity fields. The torsion field and its emanations are subtle energy fields. They are separate and distinct from classical Electric, Magnetic, and Gravity fields. Generators for these fields can be shielded against electro-magnetic fields and the torsion field still manifest itself through such shielding.
Torsion fields can be generated, detected, switched on and off (such as for communication purposes), and are a distinct type of energy field heretofore not included in today’s classical physics. Torsion field emanations can travel at velocities at least as high as 109 times the speed of light. Torsion fields can interact with laser beams (change frequency); affect biological processes; are generated by melting or solidifying some materials; affect quartz crystals; affect some electronic components; can favorably change some beverages; and have been noted to affect gravity.
According to Akimov, torsion fields coupled with the standard electric, magnetic, and gravity fields should provide means for a unified field theory that will extend the realm of science to include the effects of consciousness. The concept of dowsing, for example, can now have a scientific basis for explanation of the phenomenon. If this suggestion by Akimov proves viable, then science has an opportunity to extend its borders more rapidly into the so-called psychic realms. That could be a multi-decade venture of considerable importance to the expansion of scientific knowledge.
A couple of issues ago, NEN began advertising “gravity-wave tapes” and a multi-channel “gravity-wave detector”. You may question our motive. After reading some of the Russian literature about torsion fields, your editor became almost convinced that there was a similarity between the so-called gravity waves of Ramsay and Hodowanec and the torsion fields. If correct, then the Ramsay gravity-wave detector will be an excellent torsion-field measuring instrument. Therefore, we have obtained copies of professional papers from three groups of scientists working on torsion fields in Russia. All three of these torsion-field articles are published in volume2, no. 3-4 of the Journal of New Energy.
In Russia, several types of torsion-field generators have been patented and some are available to purchase. NEN will try to obtain more information about the availability of torsion-field generators. Hopefully, such generators can be made available for purchase (or replication) here in the U.S. NEN encourages its readers to consider becoming involved in the development of low-power FTL communciation systems. You may want to get a fast start by ordering a gravity wave detector. Maybe the next Mars Rover will be controlled by a torsion-field communicator and not suffer the considerable delay now endured in controlling the rover over millions of miles using the slow, old-fashioned, radio waves.
Until now, little attention has been paid to the four forces of inertia: centrifugal, translational, rotational, and coriolis. Shipov’s results indicate that vehicles propelled by inertial force can operate in any medium with 70-90% energy efficiency and are ecologically friendly. The research focused on “twisted” space-time, or torsion in space, as the propulsion source. Shipov’s prototype (a small vehicle without gears, propellers, or any emissions) moves along the ground, on water, and when suspended in air. With this motion, unlike conventional jet-propelled motion, inertial mass is not expended, degraded, or emitted; it remains controlled by the local metric engineering of warp. The experimental unit weighs 1.7 kg and has a traction force of 170 grams. Controlled by the computer software through an attached cable (in the future, it will be just a microchip),the test vehicle moves at a speed of 2 meters per 10 seconds (1.4k/h) and can accelerate. Calculations indicate that a vehicle weighing around 1.5 tons could travel 1000 meters (1 km) in 4 seconds or 900 k/h.
TORSION RADIATION – THEORY OF PHYSICAL VACUUM
Over the course of latter decades, tens of unexplainable microscopic and macroscopic effects in natural sciences and especially in physics and biology have been revealed and investigated. It should be emphasized that a large part of these phenomena were demonstrated by objects having spin or angular momentum. Probably the first researcher who experimentally detected the unusual effects associated with torsion was a professor of the Russian physical-chemical society, N.P.Myshkin, who at the end of the nineteenth century conducted a series of experiments using scales . These experiments were successfully repeated in the 1960s by professor N.A. Kozyrev and V.V. Nasonov and later by V.S. Belyaev, S.P. Mikhailov, A.G. Parkhomov and others.
In the 1940s, the soviet astrophysicist N.A. Kozyrev proposed that the rotation of stars was connected with their energy output. According to the theory developed by N.A. Kozyrev, time and rotation are closely interconnected. In order to verify his theory, N.A. Kozyrev conducted a series of experiments with spinning gyroscopes. The goal of these experiments was to make a measurement of the forces arising while the gyroscope was spinning. N.A. Kozyrev detected that the weight of the spinning gyroscope changes slightly depending on the angular velocity and the direction of rotation. The effect he discovered was not large, but the nature of the arising forces could not be explained by existing theories. N.A. Kozyrev explained the observed effect as being the manifestation of some “physical properties of time” [2,3].
In the 1970s, in order to verify N.A. Kozyrev’s theory, a major research of gyroscopes and gyroscopic systems was conducted by a member of Belarus Academy of Sciences, professor A.I. Veinik. The effect discovered earlier by N.A. Kozyrev was completely confirmed, but in order to explain the observed results, A.I. Veinik developed his own theory. According to this theory, every substance has it’s own “chronal charge” defined by the quantity of “chronal” particles which were named “chronons”. A.I. Veinik supposed that while the object is spinning, “chronons” are interacting with other “chronons” that surround this object and therefor the weight of the object changes. According to A.I. Veinik’s theory, “chronons” generate the so called “chronal” field. A.I. Veinik found experimentally that strong “chronal” fields can be generated by spinning masses. A.I. Veinik measured some properties of “chronal” fields and found that two types of “chronons” exist (“plus” and “minus” chronons). It is important to emphasize that A.I. Veinik concluded that the sign of the “chronon” depended on orientation of it’s spin .
Reported observations of gyroscope weight variations have been made repeatedly by various researchers in many countries (e.g.[5-7]). Almost in all cases the observed effects were interpreted as the manifestation of antigravitation. In 1989, H. Hayasaka and S. Takeuchi conducted a series of experiments in which the fall-time of a freely-falling spinning gyroscope was measured. They found that the fall-time varied depending on the angular velocity and the direction of rotation. H. Hayasaka and S. Takeuchi have attempted to explain the effect of antigravitation as the manifestation of torsion fields generated by the spinning gyroscope .
It should be noted that reports stating that the weight of a spinning gyroscope does not change are also known. Analysis of these reports shows that experimenters have simply not fulfilled the conditions required to achieve the expected effect. N.A. Kozyrev, A.I. Veinik and other researchers who obsered the change of weight emphasized repeatedly that the rotation must be non-stationary. For instance, N.A. Kozyrev and A.I. Veinik used special vibrations, and H. Hayasaka experimented with moving (falling) gyroscopes.
From the mid-50s to the late 70s, professor N.A. Kozyrev (with V.V. Nasonov) conducted astronomical observations using a receiving system of a new type. When the telescope was directed at a certain star, the detector (designed by N.A. Kozyrev and V.V. Nasonov) positioned within the telescope registered the incoming signal even if the main mirror of the telescope was shielded by metal screens. This fact indicated that electromagnetic waves (light) had some component that could not be shielded by metal screens. When the telescope was directed not at the visible but at the true position of a star, the detector then registered an incoming signal that was much stronger. The registration of the true positions of different stars could be interpreted only as registration of star radiation that had velocities billions of times greater than the speed of light. N.A. Kozyrev also found that the detector registered an incoming signal when the telescope was directed at a position symmetrical to the visible position of a star relative to it’s true position. This fact was interpreted as a detection of the future positions of stars .
In the late 1980s to early 90s, astronomical observations using the Kozyrev-type detector were successfully conducted by a group of academics at the Russian Academy of Sciences under M.M. Lavrentiev. While the sky was scanned by the shielded telescope with the detector inside, it registered signals coming from the visible position of each star, the true position, and also the position symmetrical to the visible position of a star relative to it’s true position. M.M. Lavrentiev could not give a theoretical interpretation to these facts [9-11]. In 1992 these experiments were successfully repeated by the group of A.E. Akimov at the Main astronomical observatory of the Ukraine Academy of Sciences (Kiev,) and at the Crimean astrophysical observatory (Nauchnyi). The obtained results were interpreted as registration of torsion waves. (As is well known, stars are objects with large angular momentum.) [12,13].
In the course of the latter 50 years there have been numerous reports on anomalous behaviour of spin-polarized particles. In the USSR the groups under V.G. Baryshevsky and M.I. Podgoretsky experimentally determined that when neutrons are passing through spin-polarized targets, a precession of neutrons arises. The measured magnitude of precession has shown that the field which caused that precession has to be thousands of times stronger than the magnetic field of the target’s nuclei . In the USA the A.D. Krisch group repeatedly observed anomalies produced by spin-polarized protons . In France, in experiments with 3He, it was found that the heat-conduction of helium unusually depends on the state of nuclei spins . (This list can be easily continued.)
In 1977, A.C. Tam and W. Happer experimentally discovered that two parallel circularly polarized laser beams mutually attract or repel depending on mutual orientation of their circular polarization . In 1966 the K.N. Perebeynos group demonstrated an experimental communication system in which the transmitter and the receiver were constructed as rotating masses. Transmitted information could be recieved even when the receiver was shielded by massive screens. The method applied was interpreted as the generation and reception of gravitational waves .
In spite of the seeming diversity, all of the experiments considered above have a certain resemblance: all of the mentioned effects are demonstrated by objects with spin or angular momentum. As was already noted, probably the first experimenter who made a major investigation of effects demonstrated by spinning objects was N.A. Kozyrev. It is also necessary to note A.I. Veinik’s research work. A.I. Veinik made tens of types of generators based on rotating masses. These generators could change their weight (Very slightly. If a mass ~1 kg is rotating with the angular velocity ~ 20.000 rpm then the “inner force” ~30*10 -5 N.), and their “chronal” fields could affect practically all physical and biological objects and could not be shielded by “usual” screens .
It is also useful to note V.M. Yurovitsky’s patented generators which are based on spinning magnets. V.M. Yurovitsky was the first who pointed out that many phenomena could be explained as a result of manifestation of long-range fields generated by spin or angular momentum density. Later generators based on mechanically rotating magnets were developed by V.V. Bobyr and many others. As a result of a series of experiments conducted in the Institute of Material Research (“Institut problem materialovedeniya” in russian) (Kiev, Ukraine) it was established that the emanation produced by this sort of generator is able to change the inner structure of any substance (it’s spin structure). It was also established that an identical change of the structure of various substances can be achieved by “sensitives” (“psychics,”) and could not be achieved by the use of other known technologies. The emanations of the developed generators was interpreted as torsion radiation .
In other series of experiments conducted in the Institute of Material Research, the influence of the torsion radiation on various photographs was investigated. It was established that by the use of this method it is possible to transmit information from one point of space to another . (Probably the first researchers to apply this method were Albert Abrams, Curtis Upton, William Knuth, and George De La Warr.) The experimental research conducted in the Institute of Material research and at other scientific organizations was managed by the Center of non-conventional technologies under the USSR Science and Technics State Committee. These investigations were based on the so called “Theory of physical vacuum” developed by russian physicist G.I. Shipov.
G.I. Shipov used a geometry of absolute parallelism (A 4) with an additional 6 rotational coordinates, and on the strict level it showed that the movement of any object should be described by 10 movement equations but not by 4 equations as it is in Einstein’s GR. From Shipov’s vacuum equations, every known fundumental physical equation (Einstein’s, Young-Mills’, Heisenberg’s, etc.) can be deduced in completely geometrised form. G.I. Shipov showed that besides the two known long-range physical fields – electromagnetic and gravitational – there exists third long-range field possessing significantly richer properties: the torsion field. The torsion field is an extremely unusual entity.
1) First of all, the upper limit for the speed of torsion waves is estimated to be not less than 109c, where c is the speed of light.
2) Secondly, torsion fields are able to propagate in a region of space which is not limited by the light cone. That means that torsion fields are able to propagate not only in the future but in the past as well.
3) Thirdly, torsion fields transmit information without transmitting energy. Fourth – torsion fields are not required to follow the superposition principle .
Torsion fields are generated by spin (considering classical spin [22,23]) or by angular momentum. There exist both right and left torsion fields (depending on the spin orientation). Since all substances (except amorphous materials) have their own stereochemistry which determines not only the location of atoms in molecules but also determines their mutual spin orientation, then the superposition of torsion fields generated by the atomic and nuclear spins of each molecule determines the intensity of torsion field in the space surrounding each molecule. The superposition of all these torsion fields determines the intensity and spatial configuration of the characterist torsion field of that substance. Thus each substance possess its own characteristic torsion field.
The property which is open to influence by torsion fields is spin. (We should note that the spin-torsion interaction constant is equal to 10 -5 – 10 -6. This constant is less than the constant of electromagnetic interactions, yet much greater than the constant of gravitational interactions.) Thus the structure of the torsion field of every object can be changed by the influence of an external torsion field. As a result of such an influence, the new configuration of the torsion field will be fixed as a metastable state (as a polarized state) and will remain intact even after the source of the external torsion field is moved to another area of space.
Thus torsion fields of certain spatial configuration can be “recorded” on any physical or biological object. Since every permanent magnet possess not only oriented magnetic moments but also classical spins orientation as well, then every permanent magnet possess it’s own torsion field. (This fact was first experimentally discovered by A.I. Veinik.) Understanding this important property of magnetic fields allows us to understand a variety of phenomena, for instance the phenomenon known as “magnetization of water”.
The following fundamentally important fact should be emphasized. In the framework of the theory of electro-torsion interactions, it is shown that if electrostatic or electromagnetic fields exist in some region of space, then there always exists torsion fields in that region of space. Electrostatic or electromagnetic fields without a torsion component do not exist. On the strict level this is shown by G.I. Shipov . Strong torsion fields are generated by high electrical potentials and by devices with organized circular or spiral electromagnetic processes. (Probably the first researcher to investigate torsion fields by this type of generators was Nikola Tesla. In Russia, similar results were obtained by S.V. Avramenko and others.)
Torsion fields can be generated as the result of the distortion of geometry of the physical vacuum. Every object with a certain surface geometry will simultaneously generate left and right torsion fields of a certain configuration depending on the geometry of the object. This fact can be detected by various types of physical, chemical and biological indicators. This type of manifestation of the torsion field was repeatedly observed by numerous researchers: A.I. Veinik, Yu.V. Tszyan Kanchzhen, A.A. Beridze-Stakhovsky, V.S. Grebennikov, I.M. Shakhparonov and many others in Russia and various researchers in other countries [25-31]. Later an experimental investigation of the torsion fields generated by objects with different geometry of surface was conducted by the group of A.E. Akimov at the Physics Institute of the Ukraine Academy of Sciences and at Chernovitsky University .
Another kind of torsion generator employs a combination of the above described principles. For instance, the combination of high-frequency electromagnetic oscillations and topological effect (“form effect”) is used in the generators developed by Yu.V. Tszyan Kanchzhen. The combination of high electric potential and topological effect is used in the device made by A.I. Veinik and in the device described in the patent . The combination of magnetic fields and high-frequency electromagnetic oscillations is used in W. Kroppa’s patented generators. Rotating magnetic fields are used in V.M. Yurovitsky’s patented generators.
The extremely unusual properties and possibilities demonstrated by torsion field generators allowed the development of new approaches to the interpretation of various phenomena, including ESP and PK. From the late 80s till the late 90s, major experimental investigations were conducted that confirmed the theoretical predictions. It was established that torsion generators allow us not only to replicate all “phenomena” demonstrated by so called “psychics,” but they also are able to demonstrate effects that were never demonstrated by any “psychic”.
Nikolai Aleksandrovich Kozyrev
Nikolai Alexandrovich Kozyrev (September 2, 1908–February 27, 1983) was a Russian astronomer and astrophysicist. He was born in St. Petersburg, and by 1928 he had graduated from the Leningrad State University. In 1931 he began working at the Pulkovo Observatory, located to the south of Leningrad. He was considered to be one of the most promising astrophysicists in Russia. Kozyrev was a victim of the Stalinist purges of the Pulkovo Observatory. Started by the accusations of a disgruntled graduate student, most of the observatory staff died as a result. Kozyrev was arrested in November 1936 and sentenced to 10 years for counterrevolutionary activity. In 1942, he was sentenced to be shot by firing squad, but the court later reversed its decision. He was released from prison in December 1946.
During his imprisonment, Kozyrev attempted to continue working on purely theoretical physics. He considered the problem of the energy source of stars and formulated a theory. But in his isolation, he was unaware of the discovery of atomic energy. After his release, Kozyrev refused to believe the theory that stars are powered by atomic fusion. Kozyrev was a bold thinker and was respected by prominent scientists of his time (Arkady Kuzmin, Vasily Moroz, and Iosef Shklovsky all speak highly of him), even though his work was often of a very doubtful nature. Among these theories was the claim that the polar caps of Mars were purely atmospheric cloud formations, rather than ice-covered ground.
The Physics of Burkhard Heim and Space Propulsion
If one is searching for field propulsion systems for a real interstellar spaceflight, one has to look for a theory which offers the possibilities for:
* generating gravitational fields,
* producing gravitational waves
* lowering inertia
* superluminal velocity.
All of these four requirements seem to be fulfilled by the 6-dimensional unified fully geometrised quantum field theory of Burkhard Heim, which has been proven to be correct, because it supplies a suitable formula for all known particle masses (ground and excited states), as well as the correct values of coupling constants. The knowledge of the internal structure of elementary particles makes it possible, in principle, to alter their properties, such as inertia.
The physicist Burkhard Heim, who deceased on January 14th , 2001, in Northeim, near Goettingen, was the German equivalent to Stephen Hawking and one of the greatest German physicists. Since he left the Max-Planck-Institute in Goettingen in 1954 because of his bodily handicap (he lost his eyes, his hearing and his hands by an accident) he worked privately. When he published his theory in two voluminous books (written in German, about 600 pages) in 1979 and 1984, nobody could believe that Heim discovered the unified mass formula. And nobody remembered that he had become famous in 1959, when he proposed a new propulsion system for spaceflight.
In this paper the author will give a short overview of Heim’s theory and then will deduce some experiments to manipulate gravity. Heim started with Einstein’s General Relativity Theory, but modified it for application in the microscopic range. Here, the field equations become eigenvalue equations. For invariance reasons Heim had to introduce a 6-dimensional manifold. The existence of a smallest area required the computation with differences rather than with differentials, and with selectors instead of tensors. According to Heim, Einstein’s assumption of one single metric was too simple. He introduced three partial structures, which constitute four possible metrical tensors by correlations.
This complicated geometry leads to 1956 eigenvalue equations from which it is possible to deduce the mass spectrum of elementary particles and to describe their internal structure fluxes. Matter consists of an exchange of maxima and minima of condensations of the smallest areas in subspaces of an R6. Contrary to vacuum fluctuations, matter exists when the geometrical exchange processes always return to their starting point. These geometrical fluxes produce a spin. Since this spin tends to stay orthogonal to the vector of world velocity, each acceleration leads to a resistance force or inertia.
There are several possible ways to generate gravitational fields and gravitational waves in Heim’s theory. A theoretical possibility consists in the generation of gravitons from neutrons. The generation of acceleration fields has been investigated by the spaceflight company DASA. Heim himself proposed to test the contrabaric effect predicted by his theory. For financial reasons these experiments could not be finished.
1. Myshkin N.P. “Dvizheniye tela, nakhod yashegosya v potoke luchistoi energii.” //Zhyrnal Russkogo fiziko-himicheskogo obshestva, 1906, v.3, p.149. (russian) (“The movement of object placed in the radiant energy flow.”)
2. Kozyrev N.A. “Prichinnaya ili nesimmetrichnaya mekhanika v lineinom priblizhenii.”, Pulkovo, GAO AN SSSR, 1958, 90 p. (russian) (“Causal or asymmetrical mechanics in linear approximation.”)
3. Kozyrev N.A. “On the possibility of experimental investigation of the properties of time.” //Time in science and philosophy, Prague, 1971, p.111-132.
4. Veinik A.I. “Termodinamika rjealnyh processov.”, Minsk, Nauka i Tehnika, 1991, 576 p. (russian) (“Thermodynamics of real processes.”)
5. Polyakov S.M., Polyakov O.S. “Vvedeniye v eksperimentalnuyu gravitoniku.”, Moscow, Prometei, 1988, 136 p. (russian) (“Introduction to the experimental gravitonics.”)
6. Hayasaka H., Takeuchi S. “Anomalous weight reduction on a gyroscope’s right rotation around the vertical axis of the Earth.” //Phys.rev.lett., 1989, # 63, p.2701-2704.
7. Laithwaite E.R. “The continuing story of gyroscopic magic.” //Elec.rev., 1975, # 197, p.675-678.
8. Kozyrev N.A., Nasonov V.V. “O nekhotoryh svoistvah vremeni, obnaruzhennykh astronomicheskimi nablyudeniyami.” //Problemy issledovaniya Vselennoi, 1980, # 9, p.76. (russian) (“On some properties of time discovered by astronomical observations.”)
9. Lavrentiev M.M., Yeganova I.A., Lutset M.K., Fominykh S.F. “O distantsionnom vozdeistvii zvezd na rezistor.” //Doklady Academii Nauk SSSR, 1990, v.314, # 2. (russian) (“On the remote influence of stars on the resistor.”)
10. Lavrentiev M.M., Gusev V.A., Yegonova I.A., Lutset M.K., Fominykh S.F. “O registratsii istinnogo polozheniya Solntsa.” //Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1990, v.315, # 2. (russian) (“On the registration of a true position of Sun.”)
11. Lavrentiev M.M., Yeganova I.A., Medvedev V.G., Oleinik V.K., Fominykh S.F. “O skanirovanii zvyeozdnogo neba datchikom Kozyreva.” //Doklady Akademii Nauk, 1992, v.323, # 4. (russian) (“On the scanning of the star sky with Kozyrev’s detector.”)
12. Akimov A.E., Kovalchuk G.U., Medvedev V.G., Oleinik V.K., Pugach A.F. “Predvaritelnyye rezultaty astronomicheskikh nablyudenii po metodike N.A.Kozyreva.”, Kiev, 1992, GAO AN Ukrainy, preprint # GAO-92-5R (russian) (“Preliminary results of astronomical observations using N.A.Kozyrev’s method.”)
13. Akimov A.E., Pugach A.F. “K vozmozhnosti obnaruzheniya torsionnykh voln astronomicheskimi metodami.”, Moscow, 1992, CISE VENT (“MNTTs VENT” in russian), preprint # 25. (russian) (To the question about the possibility of detecting torsion waves by astronomical methods.”)
14. Baryshevsky V.G., Podgoretsky M.I. “Yadernaya pretsessiya neitronov.” //Zhurnal eksperimentalnoi i teoreticheskoi fiziki, 1964, v.47, p.1050. (russian) (“Nuclei precession of neutrons.”)
15. Krisch A.D. “The spin of proton.” //Scientific American, May, 1979.
16. Lhuiller C. “Transport properties in a spin polarized gas, III.” //J.Phys. (Fr.), 1983, v.44, # 1, p.1.
17. Tam A.C., Happer W. “Long range interaction between CW self-focused laser beams in an atomic vapor.” //Phys.rev.lett., 1977, v.38, # 6, p.278-282.
18. Perebeynos K.N. “Otsenka vozmozhnosti ispolzovaniya gravitatsionnyh voln dlya tseley svyazi.”, Otchyot po NIR, Moscow, 1966, 17 p. (russian) (“The estimation of the possibility to use gravitational waves for communication purposes.”)
19. Maiboroda V.P., Akimov A.E., Maksimova V.A., Tarasenko V.Ya. “Vliyaniye torsionnyh polei na rasplav olova.”, Moscow, 1994, CISE VENT, preprint # 49. (russian) (“The influence of torsion fields on a tin melt.”)
20. Akimov A.E., Boichuk V.V., Tarasenko V.Ya. “Dalnodeistvuyushiye spinornyye polya. Fizicheskie modeli.”, Kiev, 1989, Institut problem materialovedeniya, preprint # 4. (russian) (“Long-range spinor fields. Physical models.”)
21. Shipov G.I. “Teoriya fizicheskogo vacuuma.”, Moscow, 1993, NT-Center, 362 p. (russian) (“Theory of physical vacuum.”)
22. Bagrov V.G., Bordovitsyn V.A. “Klassicheskaya teoriya spina.” //Izvestiya VUZ, ser.Fizika, 1980, # 2. (russian) (“The classical theory of spin.”)
23. Ternov I.M., Bordovitsyn V.A. “O sovremennoi interpretatsii klassicheskoi teorii spina Ya.I.Frenkelya.” //Uspekhi fizicheskih nauk, 1980, v.132, # 2. (russian) (“On the modern interpretation of the classical theory of spin by Ya.I.Frenkel’.”)
24. Shipov G.I. “Teoriya electrotorsionnyh vzaimodeistvii.”, Moscow, 1996, MITPF, preprint # 1. (russian) (“Theory of electro-torsion interactions.”)
25. Grebennikov V.S. “O fiziko-biologicheskih svoistvah gnezdovii pchyol-opylityeley.” //Sibirsky vestnik selskokhozyaistvennoy nauki, 1984, # 3. (russian) (“On the physical-biological properties of the bee’s nests.”)
26. Pagot J. “Radiesthesie et emission de forme.”, Paris, 1978, 277 p.
27. “Appareillage d’amplification on des emission des aux formes.” Patent Republique Francaise # 2421531, 30 nov. 1979.
28. “Dispositit d’application des emission denx aux formes a la matiere an mouvement.” Patent Republique Francaise # 2488096, 5 fev. 1982.
29. Schweitzer P. Patentamt # P3320518.3, 13.12.84, Bundesrepublic Deuschland.
30. Fantuzzi G. Patentamt # 250943.9, 18.09.75, Bundesrepublic Deuschland.
31. Fantuzzi G. USSR patent # 688107, 25.09.79.
32. Akimov A.E., Kurik M.V., Tarasenko V.Ya. “Vliyaniye spinornogo (torsionnogo) polya na protsess kristallizatsii mitsellyarnyh struktur.” //Biotekhnologiya, 1991, # 3. (russian) (“The influence of the spinor (torsion) field on the process of crystallization of micellar structures.”)
->Rubakov V.A. (2000). “Physical Vacuum: Theory, Experiment, Technology” by G.I.Shipov
->Theoretical Basics of Experimental Phenomena by Yu.V.Nachalov
->Now come torsion fields – by Hal Fox – Original version
From: NEN, Vol. 5, No. 11, Mar. 1998, p. 1.
New Energy News (NEN) copyright 1998 by Fusion Information Center, Inc.
->TORSION FIELDS EXPERIMENTATION: Cyril W. Smith (Dept. Electronic & Electrical Engineering, Univ. Salford, England), “Is a Living System a Macroscopic Quantum System?” Frontier Perspectives, vol 7, no 1, Fall/Winter 1998, pp 9-15, 31 refs.
->The development of the concept of coherence in biological systems is introduced through a summary of the work of Herbert Fr”hlich. Those experimental aspects and consequences of coherence in living systems are presented which seem relevant to the recent developments in the understanding of the physics of water through quantum field theory.
->Glen Rein (Quantum Biology Res. Lab., Miller Place, NY), “Biological Effects of Quantum Fields and Their Role in the Natural Healing Process,” Frontier Perspectives, vol 7, no 1, Fall/Winter 1998, pp 16-23, 30 refs.
Hal Fox, Apr. 7, 1998.
MUCH MORE SCIENCE for SCIENTIST:
The sun has gone very quiet as it transitions to Solar Cycle 24.
(The sun) might (1) revert to the old solar cycles or (2) the sun might go even quieter into a “Dalton Minimum” or a Grand Minima such as the “Maunder Minimum”. It is still a little early to predict which way it will swing. Each of these two possibilities holds a great threat to our nation.
We are now at a crossroad. Two paths lie before us. Both are marked with a signpost that reads “Danger”! Down one path lies monstrous solar storms. Down the other path lies several decades of crushing cold temperatures and global famine.
…Our Milky Way galaxy is awash with cosmic rays. These are high speed charged particles that originate from exploding stars.
Because they are charged, their travel is strongly influenced by magnetic fields. Our sun produces a magnetic field wrapped in the solar winds that extends to the edges of our solar system. This field deflects many of the cosmic rays away from Earth. But when the sun goes quiet (minimal sunspots), this field collapses inward allowing high energy cosmic rays to penetrate deeper into our solar system.
As I say in Magnetic Reversals and Evolutionary Leaps, these same cosmic rays can lead to mutations and evolutionary leaps.
As a result, far greater numbers collide with Earth and penetrate down into the lower atmosphere where they ionize small particles of moisture (humidity) forming them into water droplets that become clouds. Low level clouds reflect sunlight back into space. An increase in Earth’s cloud cover produce a global drop in temperature.Since the old solar cycles produced fewer sunspots, one might draw the conclusion that we will be entering a period of reduced solar storms. But this is not true. It is quite the opposite. The old solar cycles produced very intense solar storms. The greatest solar storm in modern time known as the Carrington flare of 1-2 September 1859 occurred in Solar Cycle 10. In addition to the Carrington flare, several other massive solar storms occurred during the old solar cycles. These massive solar storms occurred on 12 October 1859, 4 February 1872, 17-18 November 1882, 30 March 1894, 31 October 1903, 25 September 1909 and 13-16 May 1921. How can this be? This is because the old solar cycles produced massive sunspots. It was like the magnetic field energy was still there and had to still be released but during a shorter time interval, so the sunspots exploded in size and power.
If a solar storm of the magnitude of the Carrington flare were to occur today, the effect on our modern technologically dependent society would be grave. Of these, the greatest threat would lie in the loss of stable electrical power. A massive solar storm could destroy many of the large custom Extra High Voltage (EHV) power transformer in the United States. These items are unique, costly (around $10 million each) and have manufacture lead time of a year or more for replacement… if a massive solar storm struck the United States today “it would result in large-scale blackouts affecting more than 130 million people and would expose more than 350 major transformers to the risk of permanent damage”. Imagine the effect of a total power blackout for months/years on 100 million people in the U.S. along with many millions across the globe. The report then goes on to say “Historically large storms have a potential to cause power grid blackouts and transformer damage of unprecedented proportions, long-term blackouts, and lengthy restoration times, and chronic shortages for multiple years are possible.”
German physicists Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner offered a paper in July of 2007 that argued that the theory of “greenhouse” earth defies the laws of physics.
It’s a very long technical read better suited to those among us who have a physics background … the summations are, if true, devastating to the entire AGW theory. The PDF:
It cannot be overemphasized that a microscopic theory providing the base for a derivation of macroscopic quantities like thermal or electrical transport cofficients must be a highly involved many-body theory. Of course, heat transfer is due to interatomic electromagnetic interactions mediated by the electromagnetic field. But it is misleading to visualize a photon as a simple particle or wave packet travelling from one atom to another for example. Things are pretty much more complex and cannot be understood even in a (one-)particle-wave duality or Feynman graph picture.
It is an interesting point that the heat conductivity of CO2 is only one half of that of nitrogen or oxygen. In a 100 percent CO2 atmosphere a conventional light bulb shines brighter than in a nitrogen-oxygen atmosphere due to the lowered heat conductivity of its environment. But this has nothing to do with the supposed CO2 greenhouse effect which refers to trace gas concentrations. Global climatologists claim that the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect keeps the Earth 33 C warmer than it would be without the trace gases in the atmosphere. 80 percent of this warming is attributed to water vapor and 20 percent to the 0.03 volume percent CO2. If such an extreme effect existed, it would show up even in a laboratory experiment involving concentrated CO2 as a heat conductivity anomaly. It would be manifest itself as a new kind of `super insulation’ violating the conventional heat conduction equation. However, for CO2 such anomalous heat transport properties never have been observed.
- In Section 2 the warming effect in real greenhouses, which has to be distinguished strictly from the (in-) famous conjecture of Arrhenius, is discusseed.
- Section 3 is devoted to the atmospheric greenhouse problem. It is shown that this effect neither has experimental nor theoretical foundations and must be considered as fictitious. The claim that CO2 emissions give rise to anthropogenic climate changes has no physical basis.
- In Section 4 theoretical physics and climatology are discussed in context of the philosophy of science. The question is raised, how far global climatology fits into the framework of exact sciences such as physics.
- The final Section 5 is a physicist’s summary.
Detail from James Ferguson’s, Astronomy Explained Upon Sir Isaac Newton’s Principles,1799 ed., plate III, opp. p. 67.