Solar System Travelling to An Area Much Hotter and Denser Which Could Explain Climate Change.

Earth was said to have passed through the galactic equator in 2012 some mistook it for galactic alignment which is 30 million years away... in a cycle that takes 64 million years for the alignment occur.

Such a calculation should be important if 2012 marked off such a point in the long count calendar which focuses on the larger system or vehicle instead of the smaller system or vehicle (local space) the nine plus planets/toids.

If we think of all of the solar bodies and systems that circle them in circular locked orbit like the moon is with us; around the galactic center, instead of orbit it at weird angles like what get called exoplanets do? Then we can see kind of a larger scale or timeline emerge.

The sun and it's system is not moon locked or basically an exosun or exosolar body to the galactic center or nucleus... how long it would take or if it can even get moon locked before it novas, pulsars or blackhole's? Who knows... but if what we call mercury sinks into it? That's just more fuel for the journey... and it might get hot enough and flare out far enough to ignite Jupiter into a second solar body.

Cosmic winds are very fast and since smaller debris gets in planetary eddy sort of currents instead of falling towards the larger event horizon like everything else? We get various "visitors" moving at various speeds that sometimes get locked into local orbits based on their compositional characteristics... those that do not behave as an exo or just orbiting around larger masses that do match with what it could orbit with as a match unless it collides with something else in the process when two paths or orbits cross.

I think it would be a good idea to have a greatest extent or speed at which things travel in and out of the system and minimum speed at which they do so so a median speed at which things relative to size and composition occur... knowing the speeds of various make ups that exo orbit that enter and leave and finding what they may be orbiting that would lock them tidally could greatly help determine their path and also predict the possibility of collisions with a greater accuracy... and not only that track those sorts that may be exo but have a local attraction/attractor.

Like Oumuamua it was attracted/attached to this region of space and who knows if it is the first time that it passed through this system but as a large exo fast moving exo object... the path could be tracked and calculated; The length or distance of it's entire orbit and how long it may be until it makes a return appearance... sort of how Haley's makes it's path or orbit as an internal system exo at a predictable every 75-76 years.

Studying those smaller bodies would be a smart thing in adjunct or nail in the coffin for the OP in the study of larger bodies... as the smaller ones would also be affected in various ways... just leaving the study on the larger bodies is incomplete data in forming a sound hypothesis... if such a thing or phenomena effects larger bodies on such an extent to be ascertainable then it would have even a greater impact on the smaller bodied ones and if not? Finding out why... would make even further study worthwhile to find out why the larger bodied are so affected but the smaller ones that would seem more so but are not as a sort of paradox.

I have been skeptical of the CO2 theory of global warming, but I've never been aware of a good alternative hypothesis before now.

CO2 is not much of a greenhouse gas, so it has always felt like "suspension of disbelief" whenever I try to figure out a way it could be the source.

In the first place, we can see CO2 effectiveness in Venus. (or rather, its lack of effectiveness.)

Venus' atmosphere is 98% CO2, and it has 10 times as much atmosphere as Earth does. Temperatures at the surface are high enough to melt lead, but..... it doesn't take much to melt lead. Since it is also closer to the Sun, all this tells me that CO2 is not much of a greenhouse gas.


Earth's atmospheric CO2 is about half of one percent. Moisture in the atmosphere is the dominant cause of greenhouse trapping of heat. There is a feedback effect, where a small amount of increased temperature one year can cause more moisture to evaporate, causing a further increase, causing more evaporation, causing further increase........ etc..... (And this continues until another effect: radiative emission, eventually stops it going further.)


So I always had to try and convince myself that this miniscule difference in CO2 content must be causing a feedback loop in the moisture evaporation.




I feel much more satisfied with the explanation from this thread.

Great work ElectricUniverse!!!

originally posted by: GeosAlien

Our star system completes its journey through the milky way every 25920 years

It's more like 250 million years.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
I have been skeptical of the CO2 theory of global warming, but I've never been aware of a good alternative hypothesis before now.

CO2 is not much of a greenhouse gas, so it has always felt like "suspension of disbelief" whenever I try to figure out a way it could be the source.

In the first place, we can see CO2 effectiveness in Venus. (or rather, its lack of effectiveness.)

Venus' atmosphere is 98% CO2, and it has 10 times as much atmosphere as Earth does. Temperatures at the surface are high enough to melt lead, but..... it doesn't take much to melt lead. Since it is also closer to the Sun, all this tells me that CO2 is not much of a greenhouse gas.


Earth's atmospheric CO2 is about half of one percent. Moisture in the atmosphere is the dominant cause of greenhouse trapping of heat. There is a feedback effect, where a small amount of increased temperature one year can cause more moisture to evaporate, causing a further increase, causing more evaporation, causing further increase........ etc..... (And this continues until another effect: radiative emission, eventually stops it going further.)


So I always had to try and convince myself that this miniscule difference in CO2 content must be causing a feedback loop in the moisture evaporation.




I feel much more satisfied with the explanation from this thread.

Great work ElectricUniverse!!!

If you're interested, there's a great book, The Deniers, by Lawrence Solomon. It's about how climate change skeptics, which the AGW religion calls "deniers" and acts like they're all fringe nutjobs, are actually quite mainstream and have great credentials.

Among other things, the book discusses other factors besides CO2 that have an effect on global temperature, including cosmic factors like the Sun. Some of them cause warming, some of them cause cooling, and many of which we simply don't know the net effect of.

We basically don't have enough good data to draw any solid conclusions about whether human activity is contributing a net warming or net cooling effect to the planet, nor do we have a way to quantify the net effect of human activity. Those claiming we know for sure that human activity is causing XX% of the warming are simply lying. There's no other way to put it.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Great OP and additional materials and posts.

Regarding the part about mid 2000s information about the Sun causing warming: I noted in another thread about this a while back, I'm not sure which one, that in the mid-late 2000s I remember seeing a number of scientists on different documentaries and shows about astronomy talk about how the Sun is undeniably a contributor, and that as much as 40-60% of the warming could be being caused by the Sun.

These days, you're simply not allowed to talk about that. Research indicating the Sun is having any contribution to global warming just won't make it through peer review. Not because the research is flawed, but because the research contradicts the chosen narrative right now that humans are driving almost all the warming, despite there being no real evidence of that. As a result, many solar scientists simply don't bother doing research anymore on how much the Sun might be playing a role. It's a waste of time for them to work on something they know won't get published for political reasons.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

So if I did the math right, your telling me that we were in a cloud of 4kalvin which is 6740.33 F, and we are about to be entering a 1million kal cloud which is 1799540.33 F that it is a 266.981 times difference,

With the Earth's "average" template being 15C which is 59F

That in less then 100 years we will be sitting at 15,751.88 F degrees average... Seems drastic, and we will be seeing that type of change occuring at 1-2 degrees average per year.. with the end spiking higher and faster.

I guess that explains why they stripped all the farmland for solar panels.. but even going underground humans will NOT be able to survive those tempatures. Solar panels, definitely do not have that kind of life expectancy either. Not to mention throwing in storms, flooding and other damages that will occur to it. Even other sources of energy we will run out of way before tempatures stabilize.

But we won't be surviving not unless they completely built full blown cities, with full thermal control underground(possible given the amount of money that disappeared to black projects, but highly improbable) exercise bike generators maybe?


Aside from that I am sure some people would of noticed.. not to mention the air conditioning would need air conditioning as no machines we have can run at those tempatures..

Then again if I think more on it. Do we even have the ability to contain that type of heat?

Whelp with politicians being the ones going under humanity won't stand much of a chance anyway.. then again maybe that is why they have the idgaf what happens to you attitude.

originally posted by: BlackArrow
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

So if I did the math right, your telling me that we were in a cloud of 4kalvin which is 6740.33 F, and we are about to be entering a 1million kal cloud which is 1799540.33 F that it is a 266.981 times difference,

With the Earth's "average" template being 15C which is 59F

That in less then 100 years we will be sitting at 15,751.88 F degrees average...

That's all assuming there's a 1:1 correlation between changes in the local loud temp and planetary temp. I highly doubt that's the case.

Still, I think the long-term solution is we are going to have to leave the planet. Living underground might just be a temporary solution.

Not trying to be as smart as you guys... Hell.. I might not be.... Probably not... But... I don't think we are even on a globe. I am not going to worry about anything they tell me that I should worry about. Especially climate change. It is all to acquire $$$.. to FEAR you into it being a big enough problem. A problem that needs researched. Next thing you know you have CGI images of bio penguins caused by C02 storm pockets (more lies) for a small price of $65 million a day (like NASA) that they will scare you enough to dig in some more so they can get some more $ because $65mil isnt enough. That part is so clear to me. Besides.. As Rockefeller put it "I want a nation of workers, not thinkers"... so get back in line! HA! I am sick of the lies and I hate getting the wool pulled over my eyes by politicians.. or dirty used car salesmen like money hungry thieves that will go to the end for a dollar. Those dollars day by day are getting more and more worthless. WHY? Is it power or true evil? I am thinking evil at this point. Happy researching! I will be in my corner as happy as I am broke!

a reply to: face23785

I wasn't trying to do a 1:1, but realistically the outside impacts what is inside. Even *if* it doesn't hit a 15k average tempatures.. all it would need to do is hit a 65 average tempatures and summers would decimate the planet.

5 degree change would easily bump summer heats into 140-150 range. While making it a 3 season planet instead of 4. Even if it isn't a 1:1 ratio, or cloning the 3x changes seen elsewhere. One summer like that might turn the world into a desert.


Which means, no trees, plants etc. Oxygen would cease. Yes some plants *might* be able to survive a short while at those tempatures. But we are talking 1/3rd of a year in those ranges. Ain't no way.

Serious question:

Has anyone noticed that the constellations have shifted from their regular paths?

a reply to: Elvicious1

Yes, I also noticed a huge difference in the location and rising of the sun, and moon. I pretty sure, even if they won't tell us we dipped way below our normal Axis.

The only way you will find any hints on this is to compare wind streams. Most people won't pick up if a stream dips lower then normal. Without comparing it to the past.

But if you pay attention to the weather channel. You will see the central US stream reaches Texas. This is new, that stream use to barely touch the northern border in the US.

Like 10years ago, it barely dipped below Chicago.

Also, comparison the east coast is being hit by Tornados. Growing up on the east coast, there wasn't any.. then there was 14 in 3 states during the same storm.

Now when I visited my GMA in the heartland, I was young, nearly peed myself when we were surrounded by twisters on all sides but the one we were going. But that activity turned one maybe two twisters last year(thank God, now that I am living here..) , But it is Flatlands it is expected.

I think we rotated, I would need to do more mapping to check by how much. I also think the flooding that hit NYC/NJ/PA was caused by the dip.

OMG! THANK YOU! I thought I was crazy and I noticed the sun dipping as well. Where I'm at it now sets almost due North, or at least 10° West of due North by the North Star. The Sunrise is at 10° East of due North

And the Big Dipper is making a 360° circuit.

reply to: BlackArrow

a reply to: Elvicious1

I added a little bit, but yeah I noticed this awhile ago, the moon was normal to drift. But I think this is what caused the east coast flooding.

I pretty much live like a vampire, insomnia prevents me from sleeping at night. So I almost always see the sun rise.

But yeah, I suggest checking the wind patterns. See if anything you noticed change. For me, they can't really hide that info to much. Because it's almost a photographic memory on stupid crap. (Never worked for acing tests or important crap). Just stupid little things, like HIV in kids Tylenol (I was like 5-6 and remembered that crap..)

So, I got plenty of weather stories from my youth and times in the heartland/tornado alley.

a reply to: Elvicious1

I first started noticing it personally back when I was in Org, the 9+ chili quake apparently rotated the earth by 2 inches measured in space. But I don't think that rotation ever stopped, I think that rotation altered the spin like a wobble on a top, that becomes wider before it falls.

Now if you consider a reverse jerk as it tries to recenter, it could easily explain the flooding and weird storm that hit the east.

The only problem is, people think cause and effects have to be one after the other with no gaps. But there is a broad theory that was explored way back when based on the chaos theory.

How a butterfly flapping it's wings in one location can theoretically cause a tsunami in another(Butterfly Effect) Personally I think the theory has actually started to receive more support.

One of the interesting tidbits. Is when a person travels they take the stars with them. This has been proven correct, but was a fraction of an inch, not noticeable to the human eye. But can be measured.

But when you consider all the extra travelling and grouping humans have done more recently. It could in theory of changed the alignment of the stars.

That is just something else to consider. Since it seems the more we progress things are seeming to be not what was once accepted.


Although, *if* we just entered the cloud that jerk(point of contact/resistance based on laws of exchange physics) could of caused the storms, again shifting rotation, and causing alignment issues. With the added gatherings, and possible increase on gravity based on pressure changes found on other planets. Anything is possible.

To many theories with no way to test it.

a reply to: BlackArrow

Yeah I wasn't questioning the rest of that. I was pretty clear I thought your overall point was correct.

a reply to: face23785

I was just sharing other possible ways it could of occured. Didn't think you doubted it . Just some of this stuff I find fascinating.

The weird part of it is, though all of these are mainstream and pretty much accepted depending on which scientist you talk to.

But every one of them will say it's because of one of the above reasons.

I really wish astrology was still as big today as it was back then.. more then Elon musk and his trash in space.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: GeosAlien

Our star system completes its journey through the milky way every 25920 years

It's more like 250 million years.

yes indeed, the 25,920 year cycle is the length of the Precession Cycle not the orbit of Solar System in the Galaxy

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

The earth atmosphere is not static

For example the CO2 level is about 400 ppm, CO2 is a trace gas, based on studies of air bubble trapped in ice cores, the CO2 level is same as it was 2 million years ago

During the Carboniferous period of 300 million years ago, the O2 level was about 33 % do to the lush vegetation which covered the earth

During Cretaceous period from 150-65 million years ago the O2 level was 25%

Current O2 is 20.9 %

Based on fossil records it is estimated that CO2 levels were 20 x current , ie 8000 ppm , in the distant past

Any one who starts complaining about excess CO2 will the earth is a fool or liar, probably both

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Climate change is a money grab for the left that suckers in the weak-minded that don't think critically or question things. You can scream this from the rooftops and they will ignore you. This part of the universe is also the same part we were supposedly in millions of years ago when the dinos were wiped out.

Fantastic thread OP! I wasn't aware of this until I came across this thread, this is why I love ATS. It makes so much more sense compared to the man made global warming yarn they're spinning us.