The conflict between observation and standard theory has led to many speculations about the solar interior that were advanced because their proponents believed that the subject is in a state of crisis.
Bahcall & Davis, Science, v. 190 (11/1975, p. 264) as quoted by Douglas Vogt, God’s Day of Judgment, p. 259
18th Century Catastrophists
Ever since Galileo discovered the universe through his telescope, mankind has learned there are cycles on the Sun. Prior to that time, only a few wise men – such as the Prophet Daniel – had access to astronomical records in which patterns could be discerned. Following the invention of the telescope, there was an explosion of knowledge as the collection and collation of observations by many scientists worldwide made it possible for new cosmological theories to be developed.
Edmond Halley, of Halley’s Comet fame and a colleague of Isaac Newton, offered a new cosmological theory: that of the periodicity of comets.
With Newton and William Whiston, he scoured ancient astronomical records and revisited accounts of these ancient apparitions and accompanying catastrophes. The appearance of the “Great Comet of 1680” contributed favorably to 18th Century Catastrophism. William Whiston produced the theory, with Newton’s approval, that Noah’s Flood was of cometary origin and that the end of the world would occur by the return of a sun-grazing comet. Whiston believed that sometimes the perihelion of comets brought them close enough to the Sun to acquire solar mass and then sometimes, upon their return back into outer space, encounter Earth to unload its newly acquired, broiling kettle of destruction (Whiston, A New Theory of the Earth, From Its Original, To the Consummation of All Things, 1722, p. 197 et al).
Uniformitarian Gradualism v. Catastrophism
But the encounters with comets in the subsequent centuries became rare and less dramatic. The theory arose that comets were harmless creatures of the universe, merely “dirty snowballs” which are easily destroyed in the cosmos and which pose no threat to humanity or to Earth’s life-cycles.
Unsurprisingly, there seem to be cycles in human thought as well, not merely in philosophy and religion (which theologians and historians might have noticed) but in cosmology. We find that in the closing years of the 20th century, after two centuries of the dominance of uniformitarian views, startling cosmic observations renewed the catastrophic narrative. We had the shocking collision of Comet Shumaker-Levy with the Planet Jupiter in 1994, an event that resulted not simply in disintegration but also in a nuclear explosion. Subsequent waves of sun-diving comets—most of them too small to notice—produced what seemed liked daily solar flaring and then, most dramatically with the appearance of Comet Hale-Bopp later in the decade, we witnessed the passage of this planetary-sized comet, which had been originally calculated to have had an Earth-bound trajectory, but because of its size and “tail drag” per McCanney’s calculations, passed its perihelion without incident. This era of panic finally ended in 2012 with the passage of Comet Ison and the failed predictions based upon the ancient Mayan calendar.
Cometary catastrophism had been reintroduced by Immanuel Velikovsky’s theories in the 1950s about a once wayward Planet Venus, then Donald Patten’s lesser known theory of Mars as a primordial Earth-moon, and finally, in the science of James M. McCanney’s “Planet X” polemics. While these theories were dismissed by the scientific community, new data from subsequent space probes in which spacecraft actually landed on a comet, scientific dogma has been overturned: the cores of comets contain no water. There is no shedding of the cometary surface. Water in the tail – and the soup of other elements – occurs by an action of attraction as the comet passes through different areas of space in which water, or hydrocarbons, or sulfur, etc. might be saturated.
The world of science has become, once again concerned about asteroids, comets, and meteors which might cause calamities upon Earth.
In the midst of this renewed catastrophism, non-cometary causes have also been considered. Charles Hapgood theorized that world catastrophic resets occur which cause Earth to tilt or rock creating a new barrage of calamities from such a violent shift. Then in recent years, Douglas Vogt’s solar nova reset model began to gain traction. It is the belief that past calamities which are recorded in the geological record represent the results of massive storm events on the Sun.
These storms Vogt believed were caused by internal cycles in the Sun rather than external ones. This view has not as yet been definitively proved, partly because it is dependent upon first-cause metaphysics. However, the Sun does, indeed, manifest cycles from the 2 hour and 40 minute “pulses” to the well-known 11-year sunspot cycle and for the topic of this discussion, the 88-year Gleissberg Cycle. The reason why the Gleissberg Cycle has acquired renewed notoriety is the belief by Vogt that it represents part of a “nova” cycle on the Sun of a larger cycle 12,068 years. 12,068 represents the sum of 136 Gleissberg cycles.
Internet searches will bring up disparate descriptions of the Gleissberg Cycle. First proposed by Heinrich Wolf in 1862 the existence of the cycle was finally confirmed by Walter Gleissberg in 1939.
While accounts are agreed that the phenomenon represents an “amplitude modulation” to the conventional “Jovian” 11-year cycles, there is disagreement over the length of the cycle. Periods of 60 to 150 years have been suggested, with a more settled view of 70-100 year cycles. The length has more to do with the regularity and length of the Jovian cycles than with anything inherent in the amplitude of the Gleissberg Cycle itself. The most settled length has been 88 years or eight 11-year Jovian cycles.
Gleissberg Cycles, as dramatically demonstrated in Vogt’s charts, came into prominence during the last peak period circa. 1957/58. Not only were the sunspot counts of extraordinary size (over 300), but the general turbulence on the Sun worried scientists as something startling and foreboding. The push for space exploration using the new rocket technology was incentivized. The need seemed pressing to gather more data to confirm whether the Sun was capable of exploding.
Nova Science
Since then, the 11-year cycles have followed the Gleissberg pattern of greater solar output and higher peaks. Spurious theories have been contrived by the intelligence community, such as global warming, to deflect attention from this solar pattern. Vogt (recently deceased) believed there is an on-going government policy to hide this “doomsday” risk from the general public to prevent panic.
While for conventional science, stars are expected to nova only at the end of their stellar life-span, for Vogt and for newer analysts such as Ben Davidson, all stellar bodies experience “novas” as part of a normal astral cycle in which the fission and fusion processes require periodic “cleansing” actions in which the accumulation of stellar “dust” and heavy isotopes must be expelled to restore them to a clean and efficient burn. Davidson does not appear to embrace Vogt’s 12,068 year cycle. He remains “agnostic” as to the exact causes and timing of these cycles. Vogt was more dogmatic because he embraced a theory of “Multi-Dimensional Reality”: a belief that the universe is the product of information which is being processed by a universe-sized “computer” programming system to which all things must conform. Vogt was a “cosmological predestinarian.”
That stars nova and that our Sun has dramatic solar storms is not a fact which must be proved. This is common science. The questions before us are different: 1) whether a true solar nova is or was ever necessary to explain the geological record and 2) whether it is reasonable to expect that 2046 AD – the next peak of the Gleissberg Cycle – will be accompanied by such a nova.
The Achilles Heel to Vogt’s theory might be the fact that we are still not certain what causes the 11-year sunspot cycle, let alone the Gleissberg Cycle. The Vogt model believes it is an internal clock, irrespective of solar storms, cometary encounters and planetary positioning. In contrast, scientists such as McCanney typically believe that the Planet Jupiter, which has an 11-year orbit, might have something to do with this cycle. If so, then the nova cycle would depend upon external factors, not merely internal ones.
There is a speculation that the Gleissberg Cycle might have something to do with planetary geometry, as well, involving an 88-year confluence of the planets: Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune. But no historical correlation seems to exist which would support this view. Currently, in this Solar Cycle #25, all of the planets except for Pluto are already on the same side of the Sun. If anything, we should expect that it is this cycle which should witness a Gleissberg “peak” and not Solar Cycle #27 which occurs some 22 years from now.
Miyake Events
The discovery in recent years of what is called “Miyake” events might help us here. From dendrochronological records (tree rings), scientists, such as Dr. Fusa Miyake, have confirmed that the solar flash of 774/75 AD, otherwise known as the “Charlemagne Event,” can be found in the geological records. The Charlemagne Event was one of those rare solar storms which were visible to the naked eye. Such storms are dramatically larger – perhaps by many degrees in magnitude – than the famed “Carrington event” of 1859.
While no obvious geophysical effects were observed or recorded at that time (however, the century following was punctuated by cometary storms and other lithospheric and climatological crises, see Newton’s Notes, pending), it is generally believed that our modern electrical technology would be abruptly destroyed should such a storm occur again. It is understandable that researchers would want to know if there have been other storms of this scale which might set a pattern of periodicity.
Fortunately, such research has been fruitful. Using dendrochronological records and the record of isotopic layering in arctic ice, scientists have discovered another equivalent event which is believed to have occurred in 660 BC. That represents a time gap of 1,434 years between it and the Charlemagne Event.
With a Gleissberg Cycle of exactly 88.73 years, 1,434 years represents 16.16 cycles. Is that close enough for purposes of synchronicity?
If 1,434 years separate these Miyake cycles, then the next one would occur in 2208 AD. That has nothing to do with scenario being described here.
The solar flash of 774 AD did occur at the peak of a Gleissberg Cycle, however. The year 2046 is separated from 774 AD by 1,272 years or 14.33 Gleissberg cycles (1,272 divided by 88.73). Is that close enough?
Allowing for a 10% error in our testing and dating methods, such a conclusion seems justifiable. But again, we can’t be sure.
Assessing the Risk of Imminent Nova Events
More importantly, considering that solar flaring need not require the peak of a cycle but rather a stress threshold leading up to that peak, the flaring then would coincide with whatever that threshold level might be. We just don’t know exactly what the stress level is that would be required to trigger the flash.
The appearance of a sun-diving comet could cause a “pre-mature” triggering of the flash. That is in part why we are interested in McCanney’s science and with Comet B-B set to appear early in the next decade.
So while Vogt’s followers might not worry about a solar nova until the Gleissberg peak in 2046, if other factors are at play, it is entirely possible that the stress level could be reached prior to 2046, such as in the next Solar Cycle #26.
On this point, Davidson has been more helpful. He is analyzing solar conditions to look for warning signs. He thinks we are in a nova “watch” period in which such an event could occur sometime in the near future.
So, we are back to our 1 in 3 chance assessment.
However, the reader should keep in mind that should a solar storm occur large enough to destroy the grid, then the odds of a 2046 AD nova event involving at least 3% of the solar surface seems certain. Unfortunately, you will not be able to access the internet for websites like this one. The human race would be forced back to a primitive technology in which preparations for such a devastating disaster would be precluded by on-going crises of unimaginable hardships.
You would be on your own.
— JWS, 11/30/24
— End of Survival Praxis, Book I, copyright 2021-2024
