Nasa warns solar flares from ‘huge space storm’ will cause devastation

Whoa, had to step back there a sec… Thought NASA might have employed .
Well at least they’re not exploiting the Maya.
So what would the world be like without alarmists/catastrophists? Couldn’t we try it for five years and see?
Just lock them all up where they can only scare and stare at each other for a while.

All of this spit and venom, signifying nothing.
(Note: I’m not talking about NASA.)

I see that most references to the Carrington Event seem to be omitting a very important parameter — the typical voltage such an event might induce at the Earth’s surface, usually measured in volts per meter. There is a big difference between an EM field that can induce several thousand volts per meter on any conducting body and one that only may induce several tens of volts per kilometer of extended wire. However, the hazard these rare events pose to our modern power grid is real.
It may be ironic that the people living deep in the jungles of Borneo would probably coast through such an event with no disruption of their daily routine while the modern world outside could well be descending into chaos.

Queelius says:
June 19, 2010 at 2:49 am

All of this spit and venom, signifying nothing.
(Note: I’m not talking about NASA.)
It signifies a lot.
Those of us that are scientists in the physical sciences should be grateful that Leif does not tire of stating the scientific pov when all these planetary alignment stuff comes up on these boards. I suppose if Leif were not a bit acerbic, he would have given up as most of us most of the time have, though if he does not pipe up, I feel obliged to hold the side up for science and pipe up myself.
There are very specific and stringent, sine qua non, requirements for a “theory” to be a scientific theory :
It should adhere to the dynamics developed by generations of scientists, ending with Einstein, and formulated into differential equations that we can use and solve, and be able to predict orbits, reactions, interactions.
It should not violate conservation numbers, i.e. the constants of motion are constants of motion for the “theory” under examination.
Conservation of energy, momentum, angular momentum, ( and some esoteric topological numbers too, which are outside my competence too) .
Galilean relativity, where the velocities with respect to the velocity of light are small.
etc.
These planetary theories, coming from the times when astrology and astronomy were all mixed up together, fail on the conservation of energy, primarily, and conservation of momentum and angular momentum when they try to use the barycenter as a real fulcrum of the forces acting on the planetary system.
1)There is not enough energy to be gravitationally exchanged ( gravitational energy available from the planets is very small and appears in the tides, which are tiny on the sun, and tinier on the earth).
2) Gravity is a manifestation of mass, and the barycenter has 0 mass. It can affect nothing.
3)If one tried to formulate the forces in the barycentric system ( it is a legitimate Galilean system, as the epicycle system, see below) very complicated formulae would be needed. Simplicity is the hallmark of real science.
Let me give an example from the theory of epicycles. It is wrongly assumed that the epicycles are wrong. A fallacy. If one calculates the orbits of the planets in a geocentric system the epicycles appear in all their glory. Does it have a meaning to start using this system to derive the motion of the sun? It is a very legitimate Galilean system but is rejected because its mathematical formulation is far removed from the mathematical formulation of the forces acting by the heavenly bodies; very complicated mathematical formulae would be needed to express gravitational forces in this coordinate system. That is why the heliocentric system, once envisaged, became dominant. The forces have a simple natural formulation in this system.
Let me repeat, within the formidable construct of modern mathematics/physics/astronomy that has been established, a graduate course has to be followed by a student in order to assimilate and be able to use the theory for new manifestations, planetary and barycentric influences are “pseudo science”.
So, as this board is followed by many scientists , I am grateful that Leif has undertaken the role of watchdog-reviewer for the science appearing here in the comments.
And I have not entered on the subject of coincidences in independent chaotic systems fooling people that correlations exist when they are either fortuitous clock synchronizations, or simply fortuitous.

Just to remind everyone that astrology is about consciousness, not physics. It is not within the realm of scientific analysis – not because there are no correlations – Gauquelin showed several, but these are relatively crude and not useful. The practice of astrological analysis works with the symbolic language of number and harmonic and is far too complex for experimental science to grapple with. Most physical scientists have very little comprehension of astrology – as modern science separates the realm of consciousness from the physical – a separation that would not have been accepted by Galileo, Kepler or Newton, all of whom looked at the world as a whole.
Incidentally, the six founding father of the Royal Society, led by Elias Ashmole, were all students of the inner world of consciousness – using alchemy and astrology – the former being a coded programme of enquiry disguised as chemistry so that its practitioners could avoid the potentially fatal attentions of the inquisitor.
Modern science actually started out as a ‘magician’s trick’ – setting up an outer temple of ‘objective’ enquiry, but maintaining an inner temple of esoteric thought – which is still present and well under cover.
A modern student of science would do well to dwell on a few facts of physics: at the quantum level of explanation, other dimensions are invoked in which time and space do not obey the same rules; ‘particles’ come in an out of (this) reality; and no instruments – by definition, can explore the sub-quantum field.
So – we should beware and accept that there are forces at work that may operate in another dimension of this reality and that our understanding of such forces is very limited. The potential for apparently weak magnetic fields and electrical currents as feedback from planets into the sun may appear of little interest because of the very tiny energies involved – but are not the inter-planetary fields of the solar system also very small, yet they affect the flow of cosmic rays and plasma? I do not think there has been an exhaustive analysis of solar cycles in relation to planetary cycles – which are very complex – but that is still not ‘astrology’ – which is about consciousness itself.
Astrology is however, relevant to the debate on mega-flares. Any such major event that disrupted planetary grids (and I have read the NAS report to Congress – it makes sober reading – it could take years not months to repair the grid, and they consider that millions of Americans would be at risk of starvation), would also impact upon human consciousness – like a wake-up call above all others. Ask any astrologer what they expect to see this summer…….a major wake-up call in relation to security, structure and consciousness….all well before 2013. So – this summer (through to late autumn) will be a good test of astrology. The giant planets Uranus and Jupiter align opposite Saturn, with Pluto at right-angles and Neptune about 30 degrees away from Uranus. These rare oppositions were the subject of Landscheidt’s calculations. He dealt with them purely within the Newtonian realm of celestial mechanics. He was also an astrologer, but he kept the two entirely separate.
So – this summer will also provide a test of Landscheidt’s thesis – which suffered somewhat from not predicting the latest El Nino, but was spot on for the potential Dalton/Maunder Minimum (excuse the pun).
Incidently, I had some correspondence with an astrophysicist who worked on the way magnetic field transfers the energy of angular momentum to early forming star discs. Leif – I wonder, the centre of mass may have no ‘power’ to influence things, but it might act as a proxy for some other forces operating…….? After all – the planets behave like objects being spun around on the end of ropes – they don’t fly off into space, yet the ropes are invisible! Science does not know how the energy is transferred along the invisible rope and even the mathematicians who delve into this last great mystery, have to invoke eleven further dimensions!