Nearby Active Galaxy M82 Shows Evidence of Superwave Propagation

Hubble Telescope image of galaxy M82.

Hubble Telescope image of galaxy M82.


The galaxy M82 is located 12 million light years away in the nearby M81 galaxy group.  It is a spiral galaxy that has a diameter of about 40,000 light years and is being viewed nearly edge on, its plane being oriented at about 10° to our line of sight.  It is described as a “peculiar galaxy” or “starburst galaxy” because for its small size it is very energetic, being five times more luminous than the entire Milky Way or 100 times more luminous than the Milky Way’s central region which is of comparable size.  In my opinion, M82 is a galaxy whose supermassive core was active in the recent past and whose energetic activity is due to one or more superwaves that are in the process of propagating through its disc.  Currently, M82’s supermassive core has entered its quiescent phase and has shut off its energetic emission, which is why it is not visible to  either X-ray telescope or radio telescope investigations.  If we had such telescopes in operation 80 years ago, we likely would have detected M82’s core and seen that it was quite luminous.

The accepted explanation for M82’s energetic activity is that it is due to the galaxy’s interaction with its neighbor, M81, which lies 150,000 light years (four galaxy diameters) away.  However, the notion that M82 would be collisional interaction with M81 is preposterous, the two galaxies being so far apart that they are in no direct contact with one another.  Moreover this conventional explanation fails to account for the fact that  M81 appears as a perfectly normal spiral galaxy, certainly not what one would expect if the two were energetically interacting.

In 2009 a strange phenomenon was observed in M82.  In their April 15, 2010 news posting, the Royal Astronomical Society reported that radio astronomers at the University of Manchester’s Jodrell Bank Observatory had discovered a strange new energetic source in M82.  It appeared very suddenly in radio wavelengths and showed no signs of going away.  According to Dr. Muxlow: “The new object, which appeared in May 2009, has left us scratching our heads – we’ve never seen anything quite like this before, the object turned on very rapidly within a few days and shows no sign of decaying in brightness.”

In their Monthly Notices paper, Muxlow, et al. (2010) report the peculiar finding that during that year they observed the source to be progressively moving in an east-to west direction at 4.2c (4.2 times the speed of light).  They realized that this could not be radio emission from a supernova shell since supernova shells have not been observed to expand at speeds greater than ~7.5% c.  One alternative that the group has considered is that this superluminal radio source is a highly relativistic volley of cosmic rays approaching us and beaming their radiation in our direction.  They wanted to interpret it as being cosmic ray radio emission from a ‘micro-quasar’, but found this alternative inadequate because they could find no associated source of X-ray emission.


But, similar polarized radio sources have been seen to separate from active galactic cores at superluminal speeds, and astronomers have interpreted these as being synchrotron radiation emission generated by cosmic rays traveling towards us and beaming their radiation in our direction, a phenomenon termed relativistic beaming.  In my 1983 Ph.D. dissertation I interpreted such apparent superluminal motion as evidence of a superwave moving out from the active nucleus as a shell of cosmic ray radiation.  In places where this radiation shell interacts with magnetic fields or remnants in the galaxy it will generate synchrotron radiation and beam it outward in a narrow cone that we happen to see since the cone is oriented in our direction.  Due to the fact that the cosmic rays are coming towards us at close to the speed of light, the emission produced by the interactions that these cosmic rays undergo during their journey towards us will be time-compressed and will give the appearance that the emission source in the distant galaxy is moving transverse to our line of site at speeds faster than that of light.

So here in M82 we have one more example of cosmic rays traveling rectilinearly through the galaxy at a near light speed velocity.  This is precisely what the superwave theory has claimed for more than 30 years. In the case of M82, where the source has been observed to move in an east to west direction at 4.2 c, this implies that we are seeing radiation from cosmic ray electrons that have a Lorentz factor of γ = 4.2 that are traveling at 1/4.2 radians, or 13.6°, to our line of sight.  A superwave is predicted to travel outward isotropically from its point of origin as an expanding shell.  But because of this relativistic beaming effect, we are only able to see the radiation produced by a small part of this shell, the part that is moving in our direction and beaming radiation towards us.

This is basically a simple concept and yet astrophysicists persist in making the ad hoc positivist assumption that the cosmic rays are confined to a linear beam (like that coming from a subrelativistic particle-beam weapon).  They recognize the existence only of those cosmic rays that happen to be producing the radiation we are seeing.  Any other’s don’t really exist for them.  Unfortunately, their overly restrictive, frontal-lobotomy interpretation seriously distorts the real situation.  Secondly, in other cases where they might not see any superluminal motion, they immediately alter their model to assume that the radio emission comes from a narrow jet of incoherently radiating magnetized plasma which is oriented almost perpendicular to our line of sight.  Hence they assume the emission to be produced by cosmic rays that are traveling at subluminal velocities and for the most part are not even coming towards us but are chaotically scrambled in all directions within the beam!  Whether or not the radio sources exhibit superluminal or subliminal movement, it does not take too much savy to realize that both cases represent emission being radiated towards us from a superwave shell formed of relativistic cosmic rays following radial trajectories, and not from a low velocity cosmic ray plasma jet or bubble (e.g., as they have assumed for the Fermi bubbles in our own Galaxy).

The superluminal source in M82 is found just 20 light years (projected in the plane of the sky) from M82’s dynamical center.  So most likely these cosmic rays originated in M82’s unseen supermassive core.  Given that the emission we are seeing is coming from cosmic rays that are beaming their radiation at an angle of 1/4.2 radians to our line of sight, then these relativistic electrons have likely travelled 80 light years away from the core,  towards us, from the time their volley was first launched.  The counterintuitive finding that the superluminal motion is east-to-west, hence towards the core could be produced if these relativistic particles were encountering a magnetic plasma barrier that was transversely oriented and positioned closer to the core on its eastern side than its western side.  So it is possible that the superluminal radio source originated from M82’s supermassive core about 80 years ago and that thereafter the core went into its quiescent state.  In this case there is no reason to postulate the existence of a separate unseen ‘micro-quasar’.

Maxlow, et al. (2010) have discounted the active galactic nucleus explanation for these cosmic rays on the grounds that this radio source is displaced from the Galaxy’s dynamical center (e.g., by 20 light years in projection).  But this point of view fails to realize that cosmic rays can propagate significant distances from a core before producing significant radio emission, as well as the fact that their formerly active core could disappear into a quiescent state.

Another piece of evidence indicating that M82 is dominated by the effects of radially expanding superwaves is the finding that it emanates what astronomers call a “super wind” (note they picked a term very close to superwave).  Infrared observations have found a strong wind of dust and gas moving outward at speeds of ~200 km/s and extending outward hundreds of thousands of light years as it ejects material away from M82.  For example, see the reddish wispy material in the top image extending from the galaxy’s two poles.  Although the superwave cosmic rays travel outward isotropically, it is in the polar directions, above and below the galaxy’s plane, that the interstellar medium is sparsest and offers the least resistance to superwave cosmic rays and their generated wind.

Dr. Gandhi who has studied this super wind reports that it “is found to originate from multiple ejection sites spread over hundreds of light years rather than emanating from any single cluster of new stars.”  He says “We can now distinguish ‘pillars’ of fast gas , and even a structure resembling the surface of a ‘bubble’ about 450 light years wide” (DailyGalaxy news report).  This is an accurate description of what one would expect from a galactic superwave, one that had expanded hundreds of light years away from its formerly active supermassive core.

Another unusual feature about M82 is its unusually high rate of supernova explosions being seen there.  Four supernovae have been seen in M82 over the past three decades with three of these occurring just in the last 10 years.  By comparison, only one supernova has been seen over the past hundred years in its neighboring galaxy M81, which has a diameter twice that of M82.  So obviously something is happening in M82 that triggers supernovae at a very high rate. That something is the one or more galactic superwaves that are now propagating through its disc and triggering supernovae.  How a superwave triggers supernovae through its associated gravity wave and through cosmic dust injection onto a star is discussed in my Ph.D. dissertation.  There I also present evidence of how a superwave traveling through our own galactic disc has triggered an unusually large number of supernovae in the Milky Way.

Previously the radio galaxy Centaurus A was considered to be the closest exploding galaxy to the Milky Way (distance 10 – 16 million light years).  Now we find that M82 at 12 million light years rivals for this position.  Just because its core is not luminous does not mean that it is not undergoing significant core explosion activity.  The radio lobes which have recently appeared in the polar ring galaxy NGC 660 also appear to show evidence of superwave propagation.


G2 Cloud Predicted to Approach Twice as Close to GC

New Developments on the G2 Cloud Journey
Paul LaViolette

There have been new developments in the story on the G2 Cloud.  Recent observations of the G2 cloud made in the near infrared at the Keck Observatory indicate that the cloud will reach its closest approach to the Galactic center around mid March of 2014 instead of June of this year.  Also the new findings indicate that G2’s orbit will take the cloud twice as close to the GC than previously thought.  The distance of closest approach is now predicted to be 130 AU rather than 266 AU, as previously thought.  If the star embedded in the G2 cloud is a binary system or contains a single star with orbiting planets, there is the danger that the Galactic core may tidally strip away the lower mass companion star or one or more companion planets at the time the stellar system is at orbital pericenter closest to the core.  In that case the consequences could be catastrophic.  For example, if an entire 100 jupiter mass brown dwarf were to plunge into the Galactic core in one sudden event, it is almost certain that it could jump-start the core into an active Seyfert state and generate a potentially lethal superwave.

For a detailed report on this story, see the May 11th news posting on the Sphinx Stargate website.


Updated interpretation of the Farsight Institute remote viewings

In a recent post on this forum we were concerned as to the remote viewing prediction made by the Farsight Institute in 2008 which suggested that there would be significant destruction to coastal areas by June 1st of this year.  I had warned that the Starburst Foundation did not necessarily endorse the prediction, that it was only reporting on it.  The concern was because its June 1st after-event remote viewing date came so close to the July 2013 date publicized in Nature magazine as the time when the G2 cloud would make its closest approach to the Galactic center.   However, this date has recently been revised to a later date of around March 2014.   In a few days I will describe this in a news posting on the website and will provide a link to it on this forum.  In all, I think it unlikely that we will be seeing any dangerous activity from the core this summer.

Unfortunately, the Farsight Institute prediction has caused some degree of apprehension for many in recent weeks, especially since its June 1st remote viewed target date is just three weeks off.   So, as an update, I would like to state that I do not believe that the remote viewing experiment they conducted was forseeing a superwave-related event.  Looking at the last six months in retrospect, I believe that many of the sightings were strongly influenced by the Russian meteor event that occurred last February.  Even though none of the RV target locations were anywhere near Russia, this event was highly televised and present in the consciousnesses of millions of people around the world including those at the target locations.  If so, then perhaps this experiment has shown that remote viewing is not able to easily distinguish events happening at a specific location on the planet.  Because of the news communication network, anything happening anywhere on the planet becomes almost simultaneously experienced everywhere on the planet.

Below are examples of a few similarities between the Farsight Institute remote viewings and the Russian meteor event.  The images shown in Figures 1 and 2 were drawn by remote viewer Dick who in May 2008 was targeting Key West, Florida on the future date of June 1, 2013.

Figure 1


Figure 2

This very appropriately describes the effects of the February 15th meteor shown in Figures 3 and 4.


Figure 3
Figure 4

This same remote viewer reported the following for the Key West target; see Figures 5 and 6.  The Slavic sounding shouts of surprise would rather indicate a Russian location rather than the targeted Key West, Florida location.


Figure 5

Figure 6

The meteor illuminated the sky as it passed overhead, hence produced “unexpected energy that radiates”.  Also just as the remote viewer reported, some people were knocked down.  Compare this with the news posting presented in Figure 7 which states: “Forceful soundwaves arrived at the ground minutes later, knocking people over and breaking windows for hundreds of kilometers.”

Figure 7

Remote viewer Dick even accurately described a land area that was “barren, cratered, and colorless” “quiet and inhospitable” and drew the picture shown in Figure 8 to illustrate what he was seeing.  Compare this with Figure 9, a photo taken of one of the primary impact sites.  It impacted on an ice and snow covered lake, which quite appropriately might be described as an area that was “quiet, inhospitable, and colorless” and now as a result of the impact also “cratered”.


Figure 8


Figure 9 (courtesy of Andrey Orlov)

In overview, at least this one remote viewing in the Farsight Institute experiment seems to have focussed on an event that took place three and a half months prior to their target date and at a location on the other side of the Earth.  Currently, I do not see any connection between the Farsight Institute viewings and the possible occurrence of a Galactic core explosion event.

Recent claim for a Galactic center high velocity outflow is likely a misinterpretation

Radio emission map made with the 64 meter Parkes Radio Telescope

A group of astronomers has recently reported radio telescope data which they claim is evidence of an immense high velocity outflow or “geyser” of magnetized plasma from the center of the Milky Way whose origin they attribute to starburst activity in the Galaxy’s central region.  They report their results in the Jan. 2 issue of Nature magazine.  Also see the following news articles:

I have received several emails from people inquiring if this may be evidence of a past Galactic core outburst similar to that discussed in a previous posting on the Fermi bubbles.  I believe that this is not evidence of a Galactic core outflow.  Neither do I believe that it is evidence of a geyser-like starburst outflow from the center of the Milky Way as the authors of the Nature paper claim.  In fact, believe that this emission has nothing to do with the Galactic center.

I propose that this emission originates right in the solar neighborhood, that this emission is radiation from a very old supernova remnant called the North Polar Spur (NPS), which has been estimated to be up to 1 million years old.  The NPS is believed to be the remnant of a supernova explosion that occurred about 425 ± 250 light-years away, hence about 55 times closer to us than the Galactic center.  Since the energy requirement for this feature would scale according to the cube of distance, this implies that the energy content should be reduced by 180,000 fold.  Hence rather than having an energy equal to 105 to 106 supernovae, the outflow energy would rather fall in the range of that produced by a single energetic supernova explosion.  Also instead of having a velocity of 1000 km/s, this material would have a more modest velocity of 18 km/s consistent with an old supernova.

The center of the NPS supernova explosion has been placed at Galactic longitude 330° (hence 30° to the right of the Galactic center in the above galactic map) and at a latitude about 18° above the galactic plane.  As seen, the CSIRO “outflow” structure is centered to the right of the Galactic center and it has a curved contour reminiscent of a spherical supernova remnant.  In fact, if we look at the Jodrell Bank 408 MHz image of the North Polar Spur, we find that the two make a very good match especially at northern latitudes; compare the NPS image below with that shown above.

Jodrell Bank radio telescope image of the North Polar Spur made at a radio frequency of 408 MHz.

If the CSIRO feature were associated with the galactic core, we would not expect the lobes to be skewed to the right as they are shown in the top radio map.  Recall that the Fermi bubbles extend outward in a direction that is perpendicular to the galactic plane.

Paul LaViolette
January 7, 2013

Possible Arrival of a Galactic Superwave within the Coming Months?

Recently we reported the story that scientists have been tracking a dense cloud of gas heading for the Galactic Center with its closest approach to the GC being expected to occur around the beginning of July 2013.  See the G2 cloud story below on this superwave forum.  But new information has come to light which may require a reevaluation of those conclusions.  Just last week my attention was called to a disturbing report put out by the Farsight Institute, an organization that conducts remote viewing experiments.  Remote viewing (RV) is the practice of seeking impressions about a distant or unseen target using paranormal means, in particular, extra-sensory perception (ESP).

In May 2008 the institute conducted an RV experiment in which they used a team of 12 remote viewers to view 9 coastal geographic locations situated around the Earth as they would be seen on two future target dates: June 1st 2008 and June 1st 2013.  The viewings for June 2008 were mostly normal in that they reflected what life would normally have been like at those locations at that time.  But, what is somewhat disturbing, a majority of the reports for the June 2013 viewing described a radical departure from the norm as if the Earth had experienced some dire global event.  The results of the experiment and the viewing of these 2013 earth changes are posted on the Farsight Institute website and are also described by Courtney Brown, the director of the institute, in an April 2012 Whistle Blower Radio interview.

In particular, this remote-viewing data suggests that by mid 2013 these target coastal locations will have experienced: a) some form of impact that leads to tsunamis and possible vulcanism,  b) extensive and forceful flooding, c) excessive cosmic ray (or solar) radiation, and d) storms and other severe weather.  What is particular noteworthy is that (in my opinion) many of these reported physical effects resemble those that might be expected to occur in connection with the impact of a galactic superwave.

In regard to the first two viewed effects, it is possible to consider that this impact or “collision” may be due to the abrupt arrival of a gravity wave traveling outward from the Galactic center.  The steep gravity potential gradient that might propagate at the forefront of a superwave could abruptly push (or pull) the Earth together with the Moon, Sun, and planets.  The large tidal forces appearing with the wave’s arrival could cause a substantial torquing of the Earth’s spin axis which could trigger earthquakes, tsunamis, and volcanic eruptions.  Gravity wave effects are the most little understood aspect of the superwave phenomenon because we have no way to verify their presence in distant active galaxies.  As one instance of prior experience, we can consider the December 26, 2004 Malaysian earthquake and tsunami which occurred two days prior to the arrival of the most intense gamma ray burst to be observed in modern times and which is the only one to have originated from a star in our Galaxy.  Again the second effect listed in the above summary, the forceful flooding, would be a consequence of a tsunami and could again arise from a superwave gravity wave impact.  Understand that these are not definite conclusions only observations of similarity to the RV reports.

Looking at the reports from the worst case scenario (Timeline A), we may consider viewer Daz for example, who focuses on Mombasa, Kenya.  For 2013 he reports the presence of “many man made structures” that are “interacted with by a speedy energy/motion.”  Daz writes “a large city with many structures.  These feel impacted by a fast moving energetic that causes damage, destruction to the structures.”  “This is surprised and causes chaos and damage.  The cause feels natural — part of a natural cycle.”  This sounds much like a tsunami.  But the reference to a natural cycle calls to mind a possible superwave cause.  Viewer Allgire, focusing on this same target, accurately draws a shoreline with a snow-capped, inland mountain in the background which he labels as “Kilamanjaro”.  Kilamanjaro is in fact about 250 km inland from Mombasa.  But in one picture he draws of the coastal area he shows arrows coming inland from the sea and writes “water moves inland, pushes; force hits shoreline; tsunami, hurricane.”

Another viewer, Maria, focusing on the Mumbasa target drew a picture depicting some sort of spiraling trajectory from the sky to the ground and in the next picture depicts an outward energetic motion that seems to flatten trees and structures in all directions.  She labels this spiral with the word “energy” and shows what appears to be an invisible protective dome over an area of houses being impacted and labels this dome “Israel.”  This calls to mind the conflict between the Palestinians and Israel that sprang up in the fall of 2012 and which at the time of writing has halted with a cease fire.  So this implies either a missile strike or something which is missile-strike-like, such as a comet impact.  In fact, the Farsight Institute analysis has interpreted these tsunami-producing impacts as being due to Earth’s future collision with large meteors.  One viewer, Dick, focussing on the coordinate for Key West, Florida in 2013 drew a diagram showing an arcing trajectory with an impact indicated and arrows radiating outward with the words “secondary waves of energy radiate, seems to ignite, kinetic energy transformed into thermal energy.”  In another diagram he drew arrows directed at people and writes: “There is unexpected energy here that radiates.  Energy surpasses humans.  They feel exposed, caught out in the open.  Urge to flee.”  Astronomers currently have not reported any approaching comet, especially one that might collide with the Earth prior to June 2013.  So the origin of this arcing impact is a bit of a mystery.  Could a superwave gravity wave create a disproportionately greater propulsion force on nearby small bodies, of size 10 meters or so, and forcefully propel them onto the Earth?  Perhaps this is something to consider as well.

The reports of the high cosmic ray intensities would also be expected from a superwave arrival.  For example, remote viewer Sita focussing on the coordinate for the U.S. Congress building in Washington wrote “power spot: electromagnetic strength above normal” “there is high electromagnetic activity taking place near target”.  Also viewer Allgire focussing on the coordinate for Sydney, Australia reported the presence of an ozone hole and drew a diagram showing the Earth and stratosphere with a note saying “radiation beats down”.  This too would be an expected consequence of a superwave since elevated cosmic ray radiation would produce elevated nitric oxides in the stratosphere which would photolytically destroy the polar ozone layer rendering high latitude regions such as Sydney susceptable to in increased flux of UV radiation.

The Timeline A remote-viewing data also suggested that by mid 2013 people at these target coastal locations would be experiencing the following hardships:

  1. Massive self-organized relocation from coastal areas (refugees)
  2. The breakdown of rescue or other notable governmental functioning
  3. The breakdown of the food supply system
  4. The breakdown of the vehicular transport system
  5. Extensive loss of buildings near coasts

All of the above remote viewing data appears to suggest that a superwave-like event will strike prior to June 1st 2013, hence some time between the last month of 2012 and the first five months of 2013.  Although there is the consolation that a substantial fraction of the remote viewings did not see this outcome, a total of 18 out of 38 sessions, or about 47% of the viewings, reported events that could be interpreted as a normal extrapolation of present day events at those locations.  So, there is a substantial possibility that things will not turn out as bad as the other 53% of the viewings seem to indicate.  We will only know after June 1st 2013 who was correct.

Nevertheless the catastrophic predictions due raise some concern regarding the impending arrival of a superwave, particularly in view of the fact that in recent years astronomers have been tracking a large gas cloud with a possible hidden dwarf star positioned extremely close to the Galactic core and making its way toward Galactic center perigee (closest approach) by July 2013.  In my previous posting about this G2 cloud, I had concluded that the cloud would likely not trigger a superwave, but I was not 100 percent certain.  I noted that if there were a brown dwarf star or jovian planet embedded in this cloud, as this star or planet came in close to the Galactic core, its diameter would radically inflate through a kind of super Hot Jupiter effect.  Hot Jupiters are jupiter-like planets that are in close orbit to their parent star and seen to be unusually bloated by excess energy production in their interiors.  Whereas Hot Jupiters are seen to have diameters up to 80% larger than normal, a brown dwarf approaching the Galactic center, where the tidal forces and gravity potential are far far greater, may inflate to many times their normal size.  This excess energy production may be due in part to the tremendous increase in genic energy in the star’s interior arising from the embedded star’s entry into increasingly supercritical conditions as it approaches increasingly close to the Galactic center.  This genic energy effect is something astronomers are currently not taking into account in their assessment of this G2 cloud mainly because the idea is still rather new and isn’t yet part of mainstream astronomy.   But it could be a very important factor missing from their calculations.  As the star became increasingly bloated, the area it presented would intercept an increasingly large fraction of the cosmic ray flux being emitted from the galactic core.  This cosmic ray flux would further contribute to its heating.  So it is quite possible that all these factors together (tidal forces, genic energy, and the intercepted energy flux) might be sufficient to overcome the star’s self-gravity and rip it apart.  Once ripped apart this dispersed material would readily fall onto the Galactic core’s surface triggering highly energetic activity.  So now instead of talking about a 3 earth mass gas cloud we are talking about a possible 10 to 100 Jupiter mass planet or star being consumed, 3000 to 30,000 times more matter/energy.  This could be then sufficient to trigger a core explosion.

I have been in touch with Courtney Brown, director of the Farsight Institute, and asked him if any further remote viewing work has been done to further narrow down the time of this global event.  He responded that the event is too close in time to do more remote viewing on.  He said that the viewers would not be satisfactorily blind to the targets and the data would as a result be junk.  He said that their past 2008 data was “virgin” so to speak, so they are reliable.  But the new data would be contaminated since everyone would be thinking that they were viewing a post 2012 target.  In other words, although viewers are not told in advance what time period they are given for viewing, being now so close to the end of 2012 and given the previous data that they are now aware of and all the frightening scenarios that have been publicly circulated, including the movie 2012, their reports would likely be subconsciously influenced and biased.

Dr. Brown does not see a benefit to speculating in advance as to what might be the cause of the 2013 viewing results, whether caused by a superwave or some other phenomenon.  He says that although the data are really strange, they could be wrong.  He views this as an experiment that was conducted and whose outcome can only be known on June 1st, 2013 when we can see what the actual targets will look like and compare to the RV descriptions.

The Minority Report. I recently discussed the Farsight Institute findings with one remote viewer who has had an established successful viewing track record.  He has followed the work of the Farsight Institute but has personal doubts about the validity of the June 2013 viewings, at least the half that had a catastrophic outlook.  He also related that he heard about the superwave phenomenon 6 months ago and was asked to look into it.  From the materials he collected, his sense was that, here on our planet, we probably won’t even know that we passed through the wave.  He said that there will however be some effects but they will be subtle and not extreme to any point or issue.  He did not see the wave as hitting us, but rather sees us as “passing through the wave”.

So here we have two very different remote viewing scenarios.  One reports severe physical and social effects by June 2013 and the other sees that nothing very out of the ordinary will happen.  As to which might be the correct view, I leave that up to you to decide.  Consult your own intuition.  Or just wait and see what happens.

This leaves us with the question as to what is the significance of the 2037 date that is implied by the periods of the Crab and Vela pulsars.  These are two SETI beacons that are a key part of a message that warns us about the Galactic superwave phenomenon.  Then there is the July 8, 2008 Avebury Manor crop circle which encodes almost the same date (July 2035) in addition to the December 21, 2012 date (see the lecture video “Intelligent Communication from the Galaxy“).

It is worth mentioning one other remote viewing study of the future, one that was conducted by Stephen Schwartz, who is currently a senior fellow at the Samueli Institute.  He had directed a team of over 4000 subjects to remote view the date 2050 and found the following.  People at that future date were reported to no longer depend on utilities for their power or gasoline for their cars.  Some kind of energy revolution has decentralized power production, each house having its own energy source.  They saw most chronic genetic diseases as having been eliminated and that there was an increasing use of genetic engineering in affluent countries.  But, rather than there being a problem with overpopulation, in 2050 they predicted that there was an under population problem in a many places possibly due to a lower birthrate and multiple pandemics.  Or should we include a  2013-like event as another possible cause.  This calls to mind the Georgia Guidestones timecapsule.  Based on the 2050 Project report it appears that many of us may still be around to see that future day and this gives us hope that whatever might happen in the next half year may not be a final end, but maybe a new beginning.

Trying to predict when the next superwave will arrive or whether it will be a big or small magnitude event is like trying to walk forward while looking backward.  Even though a nearing superwave would have left the Galactic center 23,000 years ago, we are essentially blind to determine such future events through our normal senses.  When we feel earthquakes and see its signs in the sky, it will have already arrived and our time to prepare will have run out.  As it is said, “The Day of the Lord arrives like a Thief in the Night.”

In times of uncertainty like the present we turn to remote viewer reports.  But, here too we find differences of opinion.  In the words of the Jedi master, Yoda, “Always in motion, the future is.”  The Starburst Foundation which hosts this forum doesn’t necessarily endorse any of these future views.  But we feel that we should at least inform the public about them and their possible relevance to the next superwave arrival.

Meanwhile the scientific community is taking seriously this window of observation of events that will be seen to transpire in the vicinity of the Galactic center.  A committee of 10 scientists chaired by Geoffrey Bower of U.C. Berkeley had been asked to decide what will be the Galactic center observation policy for the National Radio Astronomy Observatory and, as a result, on June 29, 2012 they issued a recommendation report.  They have agreed that during this critical period of the G2 cloud encounter that radio telescopes should monitor the Galactic center’s radio flux density on a weekly basis.  Twenty three years ago I was advocating observations on a daily basis, but this is a step in the right direction.

But they admit they don’t know what to expect will be the Galactic core’s response to this accretion event.  In one part of their report they state:

Within a few year timescale, an increase in the radio flux from the inner accretion flow is expected to occur, accompanied by a resolvable change in the size of the radio emitting region. We emphasize, however, that given the uniqueness of this event, there could be other effects and outcomes that have not been thought of and that the community should be prepared for.

They note that if the flux is seen to rise above a certain threshold, say 3 times its long-term average, they propose to initiate more intensive monitoring including very long baseline astrometric monitoring which will yield an extra high resolution of the Galactic core.  If something big does happen, will they let the public know without delay?  Or will they sit on the data for months as they did in the case of the intense December 28th 2004 gamma ray burst which they informed the public about two months later!

Paul LaViolette
November 29, 2012

Related links
Universe Today
Sgr A* vs. G2
Galactic Superwave: Science Meets Ancient Wisdom

Close Approach to Galactic Center of Cloud G2 around July 2013

Artist's depiction of the G2 cloud being dispersed and swallowed during its close approach to Sagittarius A*

Universe Today story

For a decade now astronomers have been tracking the progress of a dense gas cloud called G2 which now is rapidly approaching the Galactic center on a very eccentric elliptical orbit (eccentricity ~ 0.95) and is estimated to reach pericenter (the point of closest approach) around the beginning of July 2013.  Tidal forces have already been observed to stretch the cloud and these forces will become increasingly strong over the next 9 months as the cloud approaches orbit pericenter at which point it is thought that they will be strong enough to completely rip the cloud apart.  At this point the dispersed cloud is expected to be gravitationally drawn into the Galactic core with the consequent release of a large amount of energy in the form of cosmic rays and gamma ray emission.

I have been asked by several people whether the cloud’s consumption on this 2013 date might produce a Galactic superwave which would be reaching our solar system on that same date (due to the ability of the cosmic rays to travel straight toward us at close to the speed of light) and produce a major solar system cataclysm; e.g. see the forum comment by psychiceyes.  Indeed, due to the ending of the Mayan calendar cycle on December 21, 2012, there are many who expect an end of world scenario or consciousness transition event.  In fact, some groups have built shelters in the heart of Australia and South Africa with this expectation in mind.

I do not deny the possibility that a superwave could arrive in the next years.  I have long maintained that we are overdue for such an event and give a 95% probability that a superwave (large or small) should arrive sometime in the next 400 years.  However, it is difficult to make predictions before hand.  Now, with this cloud having been detected in advance, the question arises whether this near approach event could be what triggers the long overdue Galactic core outburst and accompanying superwave.  Indeed, studies and observations of the Galactic center similar to these reporting on the G2 cloud could give us advance warning about the potential arrival date of an impending superwave catastrophe.

I have looked at literature that has been published about this cloud, have considered all aspects carefully,  and have reached the conclusion that this encounter could very well initiate an energetic flare from the Galaxy’s core as astronomers predict, but that this will likely not be powerful enough to produce a superwave.  That is, it will not be sufficiently energetic to launch a cosmic ray volley that could locally overpower the interstellar magnetic field and allow long-range flight of the cosmic rays out of our Galaxy’s nuclear bulge.  Also, if it were able to release cosmic rays along rectilinear trajectories towards us and produce a superwave, I don’t believe that the consequences would pose any kind of health hazard.  Although there is a rather remote possibility (which I cannot presently rule out) that such a superwave may be a Magnitude 1 superwave that carries an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) and geomagnetic disturbance similar to a Carrington solar flare event, one that would be able to disrupt our electrical grid and satellite communication systems.  Also a magnitude 1 event could possibly cause significant seismic activity similar to the December 2004 tsunami event that struck two days before our satellites registered the largest Galactic gamma ray burst in modern history.  But these more serious EMP and gravity wave consequences should occur only if the G2 cloud break up and consumption occurred quickly, as we will discuss below.

One question that comes to mind is whether the G2 cloud has been orbiting the GC for some time.  Its orbit is observed to have a period of 138 ± 11  years and we see that no unusual cosmic or auroral effects took place on Earth back in 1875.  However, it seems that astronomers have come to conclude that it is making its first pass toward the Galactic center and that this cloud somehow originated for the first time around 1944 in the vicinity of the ring of blue giant stars that orbits the Galactic center.  So this may be the cloud’s first close encounter with the GC.  Whether there have been similar close encounters in the past centuries or millennia is left to speculation.  Our ability to track such objects in the vicinity of the GC came into play mainly in the past decade.  This G2 cloud was first discovered in 2006.

Murray-Clay and Loeb have theorized that a brown dwarf or low mass cool star is embedded in the G2 cloud, and that the cloud is regenerated from gasses boiling from the star’s surface.  At its pericenter G2 will pass within 266 astronomical units (AU) of the Galactic center and at this distance the tidal forces are not strong enough to rip apart a star.  They can disperse a cloud, but not disrupt a star.  So whatever happens during this pericenter encounter will necessarily arise due to the accretion of the G2 cloud mass which is estimated to amount to about 3 earth masses (2 X 1028 grams).  What transpires will depend on how fast the Galactic core accretes this cloud.  Even our most sophisticated computer models cannot predict the kind of galactic roulette that will transpire during this encounter.  So let us consider three possibilities:

a) Let us first consider the more likely possibility that most astronomers are suggesting, namely, that the dispersing cloud will be gradually accreted in small gulps over a period of around 20 years.  The potential energy difference between the pericenter distance (~120 AU) and the core’s radius (~0.1 AU) will result in a total kinetic energy release of ~1049 ergs for the infall of  a 3 earth mass cloud.  If this infall occurs gradually over 20 years energy would be released at the rate of 1.5 X 1040 ergs/s.  This is quite small compared to the cosmic ray luminosity of Sgr A*, which I estimate amounts to about 1043 ergs/s.  This added energy then would produce a net 0.1 percent elevation of the core’s energetic activity which may not be easily seen above the core’s normal activity fluctuations.

b)  Let us say as a second possibility that some time in this 20 year accretion interval that 10% of the cloud’s mass (i.e., 0.3 earth masses) were accreted in a discrete event lasting three days and energizing the side of Sgr A* that faces us.  Then the energy release would rise to about 4 X 1042 ergs/s, hence producing a 40% increase of the core’s activity level.  This would produce a noticeable increase in gamma ray emission, but certainly not generate a superwave or pose any kind of hazard to Earth.  The Galactic core had been observed to produce a much larger flare than this in 2001 when X-ray emission was observed to rise 3 fold within a period of one hour (

c) Suppose as an extreme that all of the 3 earth masses of this dispersed cloud were to crash onto the surface of the Galactic core within a period of one day.  This would add a total of ~1049 ergs, or about the energy of a type I supernova explosion.  If added to the core over a 1 day period this would amount to 1044 ergs/s, or to a 10 fold increase in the overall energy output of Sgr A* assuming it normally emits cosmic ray protons and electrons at the rate of 1043 ergs/s.  The type 1a Tycho supernova, which was observed by Tycho Brahe in 1572 AD, involved a comparable release of energy and occurred at a distance three times closer than the Galactic center.  While no harmful effects were observed to the Earth, the gamma ray burst from this explosion did cause an elevation in the ionization of the Earth’s atmosphere leaving a distinct nitrate ion peak in the Greenland ice record.  A 2013 GC burst of this magnitude, but 10 fold weaker due to the greater distance, may also cause a noticeable elevation of atmospheric ionization.  Whether this disturbance would be accompanied by an EMP that could adversely affect modern society is difficult to say —  possibly, but probably unlikely.

d) There is a wild card to consider.  That is, if the cloud contains an embedded brown dwarf, this star may be what is called a Hot Jupiter star.  This is the observation that when Jupiter-like planets are located very close to their parent stars, say within 0.02 to 0.09 AU, their radius is found to be greatly inflated, in some cases by as much as 80% of their expected radius.  This is believed to be partly due to the interception of the parent star’s energy flux and partly to frictional heating due to tidal forces, but the phenomenon is not well understood.  A Jupiter-like dwarf star that approached near the the Galaxy’s highly luminous supermassive core would also experience a hot Jupiter effect, but far more extreme from that seen in stellar systems.

Let us consider a 50 Jupiter mass star which normally has a radius 70% of that of the Sun.  Due to its close proximity to the Galactic core, its surface will be heated by the cosmic ray radiation being emitted from Sgr A*.  It would intercept an energy flux of about 4 X 1032 erg/s, or about 10% of the Sun’s luminosity.  Normally, a 50 Jupiter mass star should have a luminosity of around 3 X 10-4 solar luminosities.  So this effect alone would boost the energy input into the star’s atmosphere by 330 fold.  This added energy input would cause the dwarf’s heated atmosphere to expand far more than the 80% observed in sun-like star systems.  If it were to expand say 4 fold to ~3 times the diameter of the Sun, its surface would intercept 16 times more energy, bringing the energy input to its atmosphere to 1.6 solar luminosities, or 5300 times greater than normal!  In addition to this we must add the heating due to tidal friction.  So, due to this added energy and expanded atmosphere, the dwarf would likely be expelling its atmosphere much more rapidly into space, thus contributing extra matter for accretion.  How much this might increase the G2 cloud’s mass during its two year near approach passage to the GC is difficult to say.

Other articles on the G2 cloud include:

One last comment, for many years I have been against the black hole concept.  My long research on this subject has led me to believe that black hole singularities are unable to form in nature and in fact that the evidence is contrary to their existence.  In particular we now know enough about our own galactic core that we can conclude that the core is not a black hole, but rather a supermassive dense star.  This evidence has been discussed in another posting (  I share the opinion of MIT professor Phillip Morrison that black holes “only exist in the minds of physicists and astrophysicists”.   As a result, as you may note above I have used the theoretically neutral phrase “galactic core” in referring to Sgr A*.  Calculations which are presented in my book Subquantum Kinetics (4th ed.) estimate that the core has a radius of ~0.1 AU.  This happens to be very close to what standard physics proclaims is the black hole event horizon radius for Sgr A* which is 0.09 AU.  So, the energy release calculations I have made above jive quite closely with what physicists estimate would be the energy released by matter falling through the event horizon of a black hole.  The only difference is that in conventional black hole theory only a portion of this infalling matter would release energy that would be visible to the outside world.  The rest, perhaps 90% would be irretreivably lost into the supposed black hole.  But as I stated earlier, this whole black hole idea is an immense fiction.

Also those who have read Subquantum Kinetics will know that one of the arguments I cite against black holes being the power houses for active galactic cores is that the energy outpouring from such cores is so great that it pushes gas and dust far from the core.  In fact, in many cases such active cores are seen to have swept their immediate vicinity clean of gas and dust.  So this has left astronomers in the embarrassing position of not being able to easily explain how a black hole would be producing such prodigious energy outputs without any matter falling into them.  Even if a massive blue giant star were to approach such a core and become tidally ripped to pieces, the wind would be so strong that this matter would be blown far from the core.  None would reach its surface.  So one is left to conclude that active cores are powered  by their own source of energy generated spontaneously within them, what I call genic energy.

But what about a quiescent core such as that currently seen in our own Galaxy?  In this case the outward energy flux is very low and insufficient to adequately expel gas and dust.  That is why we have to worry about stars and close orbit passages to the Galactic center because a massive star passing close enough could produce an energy surge large enough to kick the core into its active state.  For example, a 50 jupiter mass brown dwarf coming in as close as 1 AU to the Galactic center, could impart an energy jolt of 1.5 X 1053 ergs, equivalent to 150 of the most powerful type II supernovae.  If injected in the course of one day, this could send the core’s energy output soaring to 1048 ergs/s, or 100,000 times its current output!  This would be enough to kick the core’s genic energy output into a semi permanent active state such as that seen in the cores of Seyfert galaxies.  It goes without mentioning, that this would launch a superwave that upon arrival at our solar system would have serious consequences, such as those that impacted us at the end of the last ice age.

Pray that this does not happen soon.

Paul LaViolette

High energy emissions from the Crab nebula do not coincide with pulsar

X-ray map of the inner portion of the Crab Nebula showing emission rings.


On March 1, 2012, gmagee posted the following comment in connection with the following May 2011 Crab nebula posting  He notes:

“Researchers now acknowledge that the center of the high energy emission in the Crab nebula is offset slightly from the pulsar.  They formulate a energy displacement and wind theory to explain this phenomenon.”

I agree that indeed the astronomical community has finally caught on that the center of high-energy emission in the Crab nebula is offset from the pulsar, although I had already pointed this out 29 years ago.  The above referenced February 16, 2012 physorg press release posting relates:

“In this new research Aharonian and his team traced back the energy emissions from the nebula and found that it didn’t lead straight to the pulsar, but to a point somewhat near to it.  To explain this, they’ve come up with a theory that suggests that the energy from the pulsar moves away from the pulsar into the rest of the nebula, where it is captured by a wind that carries it out into space.”

Back in 1983, in Chapter 5 of my dissertation, I had made the following point, noting this offset as evidence that the pulsar is not energizing the Crab nebula remnant:

“The Crab pulsar is located conspicuously off center from the nebula’s X-ray emission peak; see Figure 5.9 (Harnden, 1983) and Figure 5-F.  The majority of the X-ray emission comes from a region about 25 X 65 arc seconds (0.8 X 2 l.y.) in extent which is centered northwest of the pulsar by about 20 arc seconds (0.6 l.y.) [in the plane of the sky].  As mentioned earlier, the X-ray and  gamma-ray region is the critical portion of the spectrum which demands that cosmic rays be continuously injected.   So, the proximity of the X-ray emission region to the pulsar should be of critical importance.  The fact that this emission is not centered on the pulsar strongly suggests that the pulsar is not the source of the inferred relativistic particles.”

I also made a similar point in an Earth, Moon, and Planets paper published in 1987.   Aharonian’s team apparently ignored what I had said, or else had not read my paper, and in the face of this contrary evidence maintains the standard incorrect conclusion that the Crab pulsar is energizing the nebula.  As I pointed out in these past references, the lifetime of cosmic rays producing the X-ray emission is as short as a few months whereas the time for energizing cosmic ray electrons to propagate from the pulsar to this central hot spot would be at least a year.  So cosmic ray emissions from the pulsar would be unable to make the journey.  In conclusion, I don’t find the theory suggested by the Aharonian team to be very convincing.

Paul LaViolette, March 4, 2012

Local Interstellar Cloud and Galactic Superwave effects on the Earth

Illustration courtesy of Linda Huff  (American Scientist), Priscilla Frisch (U. Chicago)

The Local Interstellar Cloud.

Illustration courtesy of Linda Huff  (American Scientist), Priscilla Frisch (U. Chicago)

Though we may have already been inside what is known as the Local Interstellar Cloud for tens or hundreds of thousands of years, scientists have been discussing regional areas, aka “cloudlets”, of variable density that we may have entered into as recently as the 1990’s. For example, see this NASA story from Feb. 2002 or this NASA story from Jan 2003:

“Some of those cloudlets might be hundreds of times denser than the local fluff,” says Priscilla Frisch, an astrophysicist at the University of Chicago who studies the local interstellar medium. “If we ran into one, it would compress the Sun’s magnetic field and allow more cosmic rays to penetrate the inner solar system, with unknown effects on climate and life.”

A collection of articles with brief summaries about this phenomenon may be found here:

There seems to be a large overlap here with Dr. LaViolette’s theories about the galactic superwave and the chain-reaction effect it would have on the solar system, Sun, and Earth, with past events being recorded in the Earth’s polar ice core record.  A few questions come to mind:

  1. How likely is it that the solar system’s movement through these variable density clouds will affect the Sun and Earth in a way similar to how a superwave has done in the past? Do you have any general thoughts on the significance of the Local Interstellar Cloud and its cloudlets with respect to its effects on our solar system/Sun/Earth/human bodies/minds?  Is this a real danger to be concerned with?
  2. Would such an event inject extra-terrestrial dust sufficient to produce increased concentrationsof cosmic dust indicators similar to those you found in ice age polar ice core samples?
  3. Is it fair to say that possibly some of the evidence for elevated cosmic ray activity found in ice age ice core samples could be evidence for this kind of “compression” of the Sun’s heliosphere/magnetic field/etc. by these cloudlets?


I will try here to answer Matt’s questions.

a) Regarding the first question about the incursion of this approaching interstellar cloudlet.  First we must ask how close is it and when will it actually be coming into our solar system?  In this regard, if you check carefully the news announcements made by astronomer Priscilla Frisch, she does not say that such a cloudlet has actually been detected, only that there is a high likelihood that cloudlets may be embedded in the Local Interstellar Cloud (i.e., within the Local Fluff) which have gas densities hundreds of times higher than the Local Interstellar Cloud average.  This Local Fluff is said to be 30 light years wide and travelling past us at 28 km per second.  So at that rate we will be going through it for the next 300,000 years.  If then such a cloudlet were as  close as 1 to 2 light years away from us, at this rate it would take 10,000 to 20,000 years before it reached us.  I would say that such an arrival date is a bit down the road and that there are more serious things to be concerned with before that time, such as the impending arrival of a galactic superwave which I expect a very great likelihood will occur in the next few centuries.  Unfortunately, it is not possible to predict a superwave’s time of arrival through satellite observation since a superwave travels towards us at the speed of light.  Hence when it has arrived, that is when we will see it.

In regard to getting a fix on any such cloudlet, as I understand it, our current satellite and spacecraft observations are not well enough refined to detect anything of this sort with any kind of certainty.  The energized plasma ribbon discovered by IBEX which is positioned at the outer boundary of the heliopause is an entirely different phenomenon.  In my opinion there is no relation of this to any so called impacting cloudlet.  I believe the ribbon to be a stationary phenomenon associated with the heliopause shock region.  The reason why it is so energetic is that our solar system was impacted by an intense volley of cosmic rays as recently as 11,000 to 16,000 years ago, with a very minor event possibly having impacted around 5300 years ago just prior to the emergence of Egyptian civilization.

Others do consider the possibility that there may be a connection between the ribbon and energization by the impacting interstellar wind.  Dr. Frisch believes that this high energy band could be the first sign of any change brought about by an interstellar cloud entering the heliosphere.  She says that the energetic neutral atoms in the IBEX Ribbon derive their energy from energetic ions in the solar wind and outermost regions of the heliosphere, and adjacent interstellar space.  But we have no direct measurements of energetic ions beyond the heliopause.  So all this is open to question.

However, suppose we assume for the moment that there is an impending threat from such a cloudlet incursion.  Would the solar and climatic effects be like that of a superwave?   Well we can do some calculations to find out.  Given that the Local Fluff (LIC) has a density of ~0.1 hydrogen atoms/cm3.  Above it was suggested that an approaching cloudlet inclusion could have a density hundreds of times greater than that in the Local Interstellar Cloud, hence a density of say around 20 to 50 hydrogen atoms per cubic centimeter.  In a recent personal communication with me, Dr. Frisch related that the gas density in a very tiny dust cloud could even reach as high as 1000 atoms/cc.  If we take this extreme example, we calculate a cloud density of around 1.5 X 10-21 grams/cm3.  An interstellar cloud incursion of this sort, I believe, would have a significant climatic effect and a significant solar effect.  But the most dangerous phase would likely last for several years, rather than for centuries or millennia as is often the case for the effects from a superwave.

I discussed a similar interstellar cloud incursion scenario in my 1983 PhD dissertation which is available in updated form on the Galactic Superwave CD at  Pages 94 – 96 of this dissertation, mention the 1950 paper by Fred Hoyle and Raymond Littleton which examined this scenario of climate effects resulting from the incursion of an interstellar cloud having a density of 10-21 g/cm3 advancing toward the solar system at 1 km/s.  They had proposed that energy released from the infall of this dust into the Sun would aggravate the Sun and increase its luminosity by up to 10% mostly in the ultraviolet.

The dense cloud that Frisch talks about as having an outside possibility of encounter with us would have had a gas density similar to the cloud that Hoyle and Littleton were considering but would be travelling almost 30 times faster.  So, there would be a far smaller chance that any of it would be swallowed by the Sun and cause a luminosity increase of the sort they consider.  Dr. Frisch related to me that astronomers today aren’t considering anymore the type of gas cloud encounter effect that Hoyle and Littleton discussed 60 years ago, that they are instead modeling the trajectory of today’s interstellar dust grains as they pass through the heliosphere.  They find that the smallest of the grains don’t make it in at all because the Lorentz force excludes these high charge-to-mass grains.  The largest grains are ‘gravitationally focused’ downwind of the Sun because of gravity and the relative Sun-cloud motion.  There aren’t very many of these large grains because their number falls off with size as a power law.

So we might expect a similar situation for the passage of the dense interstellar cloud we were considering above.  Because of its high velocity relative to the solar system (28 km/s), most of this gas would be gravitationally focused downwind of the Sun and hence would not become accreted by the Sun.  Hence any luminosity change would be quite minimal.  Hoyle’s cloud was moving very slow (1 km/s) and because of this the Sun would have accreted a very large quantity of its material.  In the case of this much faster cloud passage, let us suppose that the Sun accreted only 5% as much gas causing a solar luminosity increase of just 0.5%.  By comparison, solar luminosity normally varies by ±0.1% over the sunspot cycle.  So this proposed local interstellar cloud incursion would cause solar luminosity to increase around 5 fold over the amount that normally occurs during the course of a typical solar cycle.

But the fractional increase in UV would be much greater. We know that currently the solar UV is maximum at solar max due to increased solar flare activity at the solar cycle peak with the variation amounting to about 10% – 20% of the total irradiance variation, hence this UV change amounts to about a 0.01% change in solar luminosity.  Consequently, a 0.5% increase in UV of the sort expected from this hypothetical cloud encounter would cause an increase in UV 50 fold greater than occurs over the course of a solar cycle!  This begins to approach the UV excesses seen in a T Tauri flare star and could pose a serious hazard.

The luminosity increase from this cloud encounter would be much smaller in magnitude than the climatic impact I had considered in my dissertation for a superwave dust incursion event.  On page 96 of my dissertation I propose that the estimated cosmic dust influx that occurred during past ice age superwave encounters could have increased solar luminosity by 0.5% due to cosmic dust accretion by the Sun.  This is in the range of luminosity increase we estimated above for the approaching interstellar cloudlet.  However, in a superwave event I was noting that there would be a ten fold greater effect on the Earth’s radiation budget due to what I called the interplanetary hot house effect (light scattered from cosmic dust blown into the solar system by the superwave).  I had estimated a 5% increase in radiation to the Earth just from this effect.  Also I had indicated that there would have been a significant warming effect due to the reddening of the Sun’s spectrum caused by a dust cocoon that would have formed around the Sun, and also a cooling effect due to an increase in stratospheric dust concentration.

These cosmic dust effects, however, would be negligibly small in the case of an interstellar cloud incursion.  According to Dr. Frisch, about 1% of the mass of the cloud would be in the form of cosmic dust.  So in the case of the extremely dense cloud we discuss above, we are talking about a cosmic dust concentration of around  10-23 grams/cm3 invading the solar system.  This would cause about a 5 % increase of the present interplanetary dust concentration, which is rather insignificant.

So how much of a climatic effect would a 0.5 % increase in solar luminosity have on climate?   Scientists have searched for whether there may be a solar cycle climatic effect due to the ±0.1% variation in solar luminosity over the 11 year solar cycle.  Generally they find there to be no impact on global climate.  However, a recent study coming out of the Imperial College of London and Oxford has found that locally in Europe winter weather is affected, with winters being warmer at the time of a sunspot cycle peak (and solar cycle luminosity peak).  So far we haven’t seen this to be the case with the current solar cycle since the European winter has been particularly cold this year, but we will see what happens next year.  It is difficult to extrapolate for the case of this interstellar cloudlet, but definitely a 5 fold increase in solar luminosity from the solar cycle peak should make winters in Europe far warmer than we can remember.  Maybe good from the standpoint of saving on heating bills.  But I would expect there would also be some global effect with a luminosity increase this large.  It is likely that it would worsen the past global warming trend and also reverse the current climatic cooling trend that some associate with the recent general reduction in the Sun’s flaring activity.  This could accelerate polar melting with its associated sea level rise and could cause increased drought in the lower latitudes (e.g., Africa, southwestern U.S., etc.).

However, it is likely that this solar luminosity increase would not last for many years.  Solar flare activity is tied to matter infall to the Sun.  So we would expect that solar flare activity should dramatically increase and it might occur continuously, even during solar cycle minimum.  We could likely expect a repeat of the 1859 Carrington Event, which if such occurred it could wipe out all satellite communication, down the electrical power grid on a global scale, and injure electrical appliances, plunging society back to the horse and buggy days.  The U.S. National Research Council report warning of such a scenario is discussed here.

Also last year I published a paper demonstrating that the mass extinction of megafauna at the end of the ice age was likely due to extinction level solar proton events bombarding the Earth.  This is discussed in the following press release.  I don’t believe that the Sun would reach the level of activity that it had at the end of the ice age which is evident from NASA studies of lunar rocks.  The reason is that the superwave incursion proposed to have been occurring at that time would likely have surrounded the Sun with a dust shroud that would have reflected light back onto the Sun and greatly participated in aggravating the Sun’s level of flaring activity.  No such dense dust shroud would be present during the proposed cloudlet incursion.  But I wouldn’t entirely rule out the possibility that the increase in solar activity associated with the proposed cloudlet incursion might produce a super solar flare of a size capable of producing a solar proton event of such large a magnitude.

If solar flare activity were to substantially increase, the increased solar cosmic ray bombardment would also cause increased destruction of the ozone layer.  The polar ozone holes would likely expand to lower latitudes.  A reduction in ozone protection coupled with a 50 fold increase in solar UV output would be disastrous.  People would have to put sun block on any time they go out and would have to carry an umbrella with them to shield the Sun.  Even if humans took precautions, when they ventured out into the Sun, would animals also take precautions and come out only at night?  What about livestock?  A large increase in the UV level could have a substantial impact on the food supply.  There would be some negative effect on plant life, but would not nearly be as significant a hazard as it would be for animal life.

The only good thing about the elevation of solar activity is that this would increase the force of the solar wind and expand the heliopause outward, thereby helping to force this cloudlet away so that it travels around the heliopause rather than through it.  So the effects of the cloudlet incursion would likely diminish after a few years as the Sun’s activity picked up.  Thereafter, some lower long-term equilibrium level would likely be reached between the Sun’s level of flare activity and the rate of cloudlet gas influx.  Currently, due to the lower than normal solar activity, the heliopause sheath is pushed in closer to the Sun.  So the solar system is currently more vulnerable to a cloudlet incursion.

b) Regarding your second question, to compare this prospective increase in interstellar dust influx with the increases that occurred during the ice age (estimated from  my analysis of Greenland polar ice), we would have to first know what is the cosmic dust concentration in this cloudlet.  Above we estimated that this cloud would have a cosmic dust density of around 10-23 grams/cm3 which is 5% of the current interplanetary dust density.  So incursion of the cloudlet dust would not come anywhere close to the scenarios I describe for a superwave arrival which would create dust concentrations over 1,000 times greater than what would be supplied by this cloudlet.

c) Regarding your third question, whether the evidence for elevated cosmic ray intensities recorded in the ice age portion of the polar ice record could have been due to past cloudlets compressing inward the heliopause, I don’t think that these could be attributed to cloudlet encounters.  I still think that galactic superwaves are the best explanation for these recurring beryllium-10 peaks found in the ice record.  It is a point of debate whether a compressed heliopause sheath is due to the impact of a cloudlet or simply to a reduction of outward solar wind pressure.  I think that it is mostly dependent on the latter.  Keep in mind that the heliopause is always impacted by the interstellar wind, whether a cloudlet is present or not, and its position on this upwind side is largely determined by a balance between the inward interstellar wind pressure and outward solar wind pressure.  The presence of an interstellar cloudlet could increase the inward pressure, but the other side of the equation is the level of solar activity.

I understand that some astronomers are presently alarmed to find that the outer boundary of the heliopause is as close as 1000 AU with the inner boundary at ~70 AU.  The  heliopause sheath would be far more compressed during a superwave arrival.  As I pointed out in my dissertation, during a superwave event, similar to those that appear to have occurred during the last ice age, the inner boundary of the heliopause sheath could have become so greatly compressed that its upwind side would have been positioned between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter, hence around 3 AU.  This would have allowed easier entry of vaporized cosmic dust.

d) Just to add a few more things in regard to the first question.  A superwave event would pose a far greater climatic hazard to the Earth and humanity and far more prolonged compared to the hazard that this cloudlet encounter would pose.  The presence of this interstellar cloudlet could only worsen the effects that a superwave would have on our solar system since it would provide a greater supply of gas that could become blown into the solar system by the superwave.  Since the superwave would compress the heliopause to a far greater extent than would otherwise occur, this material would enter far more easily than it would in the absence of a superwave.

Some speculate whether military forces around the world have been planning for such an event and this is why they have been building vast underground facilities and fallout shelters.  A few places that come to mind are the facilities beneath the Denver airport, and many others are rumored to have been outfitted in the U.S.  I was personally told about an abandoned gold mine which has been outfitted with living space far below ground level with space being leased out to people with money.  The Norwegian government has been building a vast network of underground shelter facilities, or arks, as well as many other governments.  Project Camelot has an interesting page on this.  Some industrialists may also be in the know.  Richard Branson has built 90% of his Virgin Galactic New Mexico Spaceport underground.  See this AP news article and this LA Times article.  Many in the area had wondered why so much of his construction was being built underground considering that land in the area is comparably inexpensive.  Could the CEO have been tipped off about the possible occurrence of a future catastrophic event?

So the question that arises is whether all of this may have been inspired from fears about this incoming interstellar cloudlet and kept secret so as not to cause financial panic.  By as early as 1963, the U.S. military reportedly had deployed satellites around all the inner planets and a few of the more distant outer planets at a time when NASA had only just announced sending a spacecraft to Venus; see Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion, page 396.  The military has always been several steps ahead of NASA in solar system surveillance.  Have they known about this cloudlet coming and have they for a long time been making preparations?  Could they have access to information that is presently unavailable to the astronomical community?  Or could it be they are preparing for a superwave arrival rather than an interstellar cloudlet arrival?  This is left to speculation.

Dr. Frisch has told me that our knowledge of the local interstellar environment is continuously increasing.  She says that we are getting more and better data on the Local Fluff, including high spectral-resolution Hubble Space Telescope data and measurements of the interstellar magnetic field in the Local Fluff.  She feels that if there is a tiny dense cloud within 30 lightyears, we might be able to figure out a way to identify it in the next several years.  Of course, even if such a cloud were at our doorstep, say 140 astronomical units (AU) away, we would have plenty of time before it arrived.  At the current 28 km/s velocity such a cloud would move about 5.7 AU per year.  So we would have 25 years before it reached Earth’s orbit at 1 AU.

Finally, some who are outside of the astronomical community and presumably are not themselves scientists, believe that the Local Interstellar Cloud may be hiding a planet X or brown dwarf that is approaching the solar system.  I find this totally implausible.  For one thing the amount of dust between us and the far end of this local fluff is so insignificant that it would not obscure such bodies.  Furthermore if such a body were present it would have to be detected with an infrared telescope since the intrinsic temperature of a brown dwarf or planet drifting through interstellar space that far from our Sun will be no more than 120° above absolute zero (i.e., minus 150° C).  Such objects can only be detected at infrared wavelengths in the range of 2 to 50 microns and such wavelengths are not affected by dust.  They go right through completely unattenuated.  In addition, the amount of obscuration is very low even at visible wavelengths.  If we were to suppose that this presumed planet were 1 light year away, the dust column density obscuring it would be only 10-8 g/cm2 which is 1000 times less than the amount of dust between us and the Galactic center.

Paul LaViolette March 2, 2012

Spiral 0313-192: The Right Kind of Galaxy

Spiral galaxy 0313-192 with its radio continuum lobes superimposed

The NASA website, in 2003, announced the discovery of radio lobes being found around the edge on spiral galaxy 0313-192.  They claimed that this was “the wrong kind of galaxy” for such radio lobe features to be seen in, noting that radio lobes are normally instead seen in giant elliptical galaxies.

I would counter this by saying, “No, this is the right kind of galaxy in which to expect to see radio lobes.”  In fact, back in 1983, in chapter 2 of my Ph.D. dissertation I pointed out that on occasion one should expect to see radio lobes around edge-on spirals extending approximately perpendicular to their galactic plane.  For those who have not had the opportunity, I recommend reading this reference which currently is available in expanded and updated form as the book Galactic Superwaves and their Impact on the Earth.  A brief explanation is also given in Appendix B of my book Earth Under Fire.

In my thesis I had taken the example of Centaurus A.  There I pointed out that Centaurus A is actually an edge-on spiral galaxy that has an ellipsoidal appearance because its high latitude gas is scattering visible emission from the core which is not seen at the galaxy’s equator due to the light attenuating effects of its edge on “spiral arm” dust lane.

Centaurus A with its inner radio lobes superimposed

Centaurus A is the nearest galaxy to us which is observed to have an active galactic nucleus.  The reason why we see it surrounded by light is because its nucleus is currently seen in its active state, as verified by the intense gamma and x-ray emission coming from its core.  When its core activity shuts off, this galaxy will once again appear as an edge on spiral galaxy having little or no activity at its core.  However, the cosmic rays forming its radio lobes will nevertheless continue propagating outward from the core beaming their synchrotron radio emission in our direction, just as galaxy 0313-192 is doing.  Thus 0313-192 would be an example of a spiral galaxy whose core Seyfert activity has recently shut off.  Evidence that this radio emission was associated with its core can be seen in this blow up image which shows a radio emission jet emanating from the galaxy’s core.

Close up of edge-on spiral galaxy 0313-192 showing a radio emission jet coming from its core.

Radio lobes are also seen flanking the edge-on spiral galaxy M82 seen below.

Edge-on spiral galaxy M82. The red lobes extended above and below its plane are radio emission lobes.

So, the discovery of spiral radio galaxy 0313-192, showing evidence of past cosmic ray emission from its core, is far from unexpected.  It in fact confirms the evolution sequence I had posited in 1983 where an edge-on active galaxy would evolve from a giant elliptical form to an edge-on spiral form as its core activity subsided.

For more information about this confirmed prediction and why an edge-on spiral galaxy would generate radio lobes in this fashion, see the above two cited books.

Paul LaViolette


Update on gamma/X-ray source GRB 110328A: Still active

The X-ray flux graph below shows the latest update for gamma/x-ray source GRB 110328A (J164449.3+573451).

X-ray flux for source J164449.3+573451

The average x-ray luminosity during its first day (up to s = 104 seconds) was estimated to be 2.5 X 1047 ergs/s (see earlier posting) source Almeida and De Angelis.  Since then, seven and a half months have elapsed and its intensity has declined about 30 fold.  So its luminosity can now be stated to average around 1046 ergs/s.

This is still in the energy range of a quasar, quasars typically having luminosities in this part of the x-ray spectrum ranging from 1043 to >1047 ergs.  To counter an opinion posted in August on physorg, this point should be further clarified.  One person claimed that I was overstating to term this source a quasar having an x-ray luminosity at the upper end of the quasar luminosity range.  I still stand by this.  To give a reference published in Monthly NoticesJames Reeves and Martin Turner (2008) state on page 5 of their paper that the quasar x-ray luminosity extends from “1041 erg/s for the least luminous Seyfert 1 to ~1047 ergs/s for the most luminous quasars.”  The intensity of GRB 110328A has declined considerably from what it was during its first day, but still at 1046 ergs/s it should rate as a moderately strong quasar.

Also the criticism was aired that the the high energy spectrum for this source does not match that of a quasistellar object.  In fact, Bloom et al. (2011) compare the emission of GRB 110328A to that of a blazar which is a particular kind of quasar.  So, again my original claim still stands.

The main point to consider is that this source is still active now after seven and a half months.  Almeida and De Angelis who first proposed that this was a black hole snacking on a star predicted that the source should fade out after at most a few months.  Indeed, its intensity is dimishing, but it has now lasted more than three times longer than what the snack theory had expected and is still going strong as a moderately luminous quasar.  I think it is time that the black hole snack theorists should admit defeat.  Invoking a repeating series of ongoing snacks also seems far fetched considering that this source is emitting a wind of relativistic particles.  Also, in August 2011 the radio-emitting region was reported to be expanding at half the speed of light implying a rapid matter outflow from the source.

The power source for quasars remains a mystery in conventional astrophysics given its inability to explain how matter would accrete against the force of such a wind.  To date the only feasible explanation is that proposed over 25 years ago by the subquantum kinetics physics methodology.

Paul LaViolette