FOTW January 21, 2017

Showing 4 comments
  • John fackler

    Good info re cancer . my dad had Bladder cancer.
    We were successful and using Rife, vitamin D broccoli support extract in conjunction with hair sample analysis to balance his minerals and detect highly toxic aluminum overload

  • Caroline5765

    In remembering Obama’s Executive Order on Space Weather (1) I think we may see more papers and articles cropping up regarding potential events and their impacts.
    I believe a holistic approach has to be taken for each person who has/gets cancer in order to cure it.
    I found it easier to read all the links you provide before listening to the podcast so I don’t have to come back and find my time where I left off. Could be operator error on my part. 🙂 Thank you for another interesting, never ending, ever changing array of topics…always a pleasure to listen in.

  • tbit

    New History of Humanity – Astounding Scientific Discoveries

  • Jon Mallary

    I can buy into the earthly timelines going back 10 to 15 thousand years and perhaps the Saharan shifts are influenced by earths magnetic fields moving. If its indeed a cycle, what is cycling?
    Barring some unknown galactic energy modulation, maybe a very specific planetary alignment involving the gas giants? It’d be nice to find a clear Saharan greening timeline proxy and correlation… But as with all things, there are multiple factors at play. For now, were just gonna have to marvel at the green.

    As for the star formation diminishing as galaxies pass thru stationary areas of super heated plasma… I’m far less willing to use timeline, age, composition motion and distance factors as factual, given the fundamental flaws in each, borne by assumption and untested hypotheses. The same folks who provide “evidence” for these facts still insist the sun is compressed hydrogen, comets are primordial ice balls, black holes, dark matter and that earths molten dynamo provides the energy for its magnetic poles, electrojets,magnetosphere, quakes and volcanoes.

    Distance and motion are determined by red shift, age by location relative to the location of the bigbang, composition by spectral analysis of one to four pixels that span vast distances.

    How can there be a big bang, yet stationary regions of superheated plasma exist or stationary dark matter… for that matter…

    I would be surprised were “What we see actually happening”… actually happening. More likely these regions are nothing more than excess matter, ejected by galactic center plasmoids or intergalactic Birkeland currents, depending on what superheated plasma is referenced.
    The only thing IMO that would dampen star formation on a galactic scale would be a change in energy distribution resulting from a “galactic black hole” plasmoid ejection event behaving as Ben said, by a galaxy changing that galaxy’s own enviornment,thereby diffusing the available energy for star formation but even that doesn’t compute because we know stars are connected by Birkeland currents and those use the Lorentz force to draw in charged particles from surrounding space and if stars are themselves smaller scale plasmoids, induction of energy from the stationary plasma clouds would increase star (plasmoid) formation, not inhibit it.

    For that reason, I would question the “fact” that “standard” star formation rate is, in reality, impeded and furthermore, that star formation is dependant on the volume of ions, neutral atoms and molecules relative to the size and magnetic constriction of, galactic Birkeland currents.

    So its a galaxy’s stage of operation that determines stellar formation rates and that’s determined by the amount of energy available to the galaxy as a whole as well as the localized effects collecting this energy has on individual sections of galactic Birkeland currents.

    It ain’t bow shocks or dark matter. It ain’t some kinetic disruption of the accretion process. Those are just results of the standard “dramatic discoveries” that garner continued or increased funding for the “scientists” who make them. This is the reason that reality doesn’t always reside in the middle ground between schools of thought. That mantra is why NASA got away with saying the current sunspot count isn’t really low, and changed the rules on what constitutes a sunspot, so the number would increase.

    I’ve said it before, these folks need to understand what’s in our solar system, before deciding what’s out there, countless light years away, no matter what they program their models to show or do. Their credibility is not deserving of accepting their unproven deep space assumptions as fact.

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.