Theos-Talk Archives (March 2006 Message tt00283)

As to the current cycle that began in 1900, CNN published today new 
predictions for the next solar maximum shortly after I posted some 
of KH's comments on the sun.  The continued escalation of sunspots 
(and flares) since 1900 points to the importance of solar functions 
that KH explained.   

Please note KH's simile of the brain for the sun.  The 2012 end of 
the next solar maximum corresponds with the end of the Mayan long 
count, which began 3113 BCE.  

Krsanna

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/03/07/solar.storm.ap/index.html

LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- A new computer model suggests the 
next solar cycle will be more active than the previous one, 
potentially spawning magnetic storms that will be more disruptive to 
communication systems on Earth.

The next sunspot cycle will be between 30 percent to 50 percent more 
intense than the last one, scientists said Monday.

The cycle will also begin a year later than expected, in late 2007 
or early 2008, and peak around 2012, said Mausumi Dikpati of the 
National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado.

The new prediction is at odds with previous forecasts, which 
suggested that the intensity of the next solar cycle would be 
measurably smaller.

Accurately predicting the intensity of the sunspot cycle, which 
occurs about every 11 years, allows scientists to anticipate solar 
storms. They are caused by solar flares, or giant eruptions that 
burst from the surface of the sun.

Solar storms, which eject billions of tons of plasma and charged 
particles into space, can produce dazzling northern lights, but also 
disrupt power lines, radio transmissions and satellite communication.

The last time the solar cycle peaked was in 2001. During the last 
cycle, solar storms caused extreme radio blackouts in the Pacific.

For decades, scientists have tracked the solar cycle and appearance 
of sunspots, but they have been unable to accurately predict the 
intensity or timing of solar storms, which increase as the number of 
sunspots increases.

Dikpati, of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, said her 
team tested the new computer model using previous solar cycle data 
and had 98 percent accuracy.

David Hathaway, a solar astronomer with NASA's Marshall Space Flight 
Center in Huntsville, Alabama, does not doubt that the next sunspot 
cycle will be stronger than the previous one.

But Hathaway said his own research suggests that the next cycle will 
occur late this year -- earlier than what Dikpati predicted.

The current research, funded by National Science Foundation, is 
published in the latest Geophysical Research Letters.


 ============================================================
Letter 93B, "The Mahatma Letters to A.P. Sinnett
Items 6 - 12

The head of a man in a strong ecstatic 
condition, when all the electricity of his system is centered around 
the brain, will represent — especially in darkness — a perfect 
simile of the Sun during such periods. The first artist who drew the 
aureoles about the heads of his God and Saints was not inspired, but 
represented it on the authority of temple pictures and traditions of 
the sanctuary and the chambers of initiation where such phenomena 
took place. The closer to the head or to the aura-emitting body, the 
stronger and the more effulgent the emanation (due to hydrogen, 
science tells us, in the case of the flames); hence the irregular 
red flames around the Sun or the "inner corona." The fact that these 
are not always present in equal quantity shows only the constant 
fluctuation of the magnetic matter and its energy, upon which also 
depend the variety and number of spots. During periods of magnetic 
inertia the spots disappear, or rather remain invisible. The further 
the emanation shoots out the more it loses in intensity, until 
gradually subsiding it fades out; hence the "outer corona," its 
rayed shape being due entirely to the latter phenomenon whose 
effulgence proceeds from the magnetic nature of the matter and the 
electric energy and not at all from intensely hot particles, as 
asserted by some astronomers. All this is terribly unscientific, 
nevertheless a fact, to which I may add another by reminding you 
that the Sun we see is not at all the central planet of our little 
Universe, but only its veil or its reflection. Science has 
tremendous odds against studying that planet which luckily for us we 
have not; foremost of all — the constant tremors of our atmosphere 
which prevent them from judging correctly the little they do see. 
This impediment was never in the way of the ancient Chaldee and 
Egyptian astronomers; nor is it an obstacle to us, for we have means 
of arresting, or counteracting such tremors — acquainted as we are 
with all the akasic conditions. No more than the rain secret would 
this secret — supposing we do divulge it — be of any practical use 
to your men of Science unless they become Occultists and sacrifice 
long years to the acquirement of powers. Only fancy a Huxley or a 
Tyndall studying Yog-vidya! Hence the many mistakes into which they 
fall and the conflicting hypotheses of your best authorities. For 
instance; the Sun is full of iron vapours — a fact that was 
demonstrated by the spectroscope, showing that the light of the 
corona consisted largely of a line in the green part of the 
spectrum, very nearly coinciding with an iron line. Yet Professors 
Young and Lockyer rejected that, under the witty pretext, if I 
remember, that if the corona were composed of minute particles like 
a dust cloud (and it is this that we call "magnetic matter") these 
particles would (1) fall upon the sun's body, (2) comets were known 
to pass through this vapour without any visible effect on them, (3) 
Professor Young's spectroscope showed that the coronal line was not 
identical with the iron one, etc. Why they should call those 
objections "scientific" is more than we can tell.
 
(1) The reason why the particles — since they call them so — do not 
fall upon the sun's body is self-evident. There are forces co-
existent with gravitation of which they know nothing, besides that 
other fact that there is no gravitation properly speaking, only 
attraction and repulsion. (2) How could comets be affected by the 
said passage since their "passing through" is simply an optical 
illusion; they could not pass within the area of attraction without 
being immediately annihilated by that force of which no vril can 
give an adequate idea, since there can be nothing on earth that 
could be compared with it. Passing as the comets do through 
a "reflection" no wonder that the said vapour has "no visible effect 
on these light bodies." (3) The coronal line may not seem identical 
through the best "grating spectroscope," nevertheless, the corona 
contains iron as well as other vapours. To tell you of what it does 
consist is idle, since I am unable to translate the words we use for 
it, and that no such matter exists (not in our planetary system, at 
any rate) — but in the sun. The fact is, that what you call the Sun 
is simply the reflection of the huge "storehouse" of our System 
wherein ALL its forces are generated and preserved; the Sun being 
the heart and brain of our pigmy Universe, we might compare its 
faculae — those millions of small, intensely brilliant bodies of 
which the Sun's surface away from the spots is made up — with the 
blood corpuscles of that luminary, though some of them as correctly 
conjectured by Science are as large as Europe. Those blood 
corpuscles are the electric and magnetic matter in its sixth and 
seventh state. What are those long white filaments twisted like so 
many ropes, of which the penumbra of the Sun is made up? What the 
central part that is seen like a huge flame ending in fiery spires, 
and the transparent clouds, or rather vapours formed of delicate 
threads of silvery light, that hangs over those flames — what — but 
magneto-electric aura — the phlogiston of the Sun? Science may go on 
speculating for ever, yet so long as she does not renounce two or 
three of her cardinal errors she will find herself groping for ever 
in the dark. Some of her greatest misconceptions are found in her 
limited notions on the law of gravitation; her denial that matter 
may be imponderable; her newly invented term "force" and the absurd 
and tacitly accepted idea that force is capable of existing per se, 
or of acting any more than life, outside, independent of, or in any 
other wise than through matter; in other words that force is 
anything but matter in one of her highest states, the last three on 
the ascending scale being denied because only science knows nothing 
of them; and her utter ignorance of the universal Proteus, its 
functions and importance in the economy of nature — magnetism and 
electricity. Tell Science that even in those days of the decline of 
the Roman Empire, when the tattooed Britisher used to offer to the 
Emperor Claudius his nazzur 6 of "electron" in the shape of a string 
of amber beads — that even then there were yet men remaining aloof 
from the immoral masses, who knew more of electricity and magnetism 
than they, the men of science, do now,  and science will laugh at 
you as bitterly as she now does over your kind dedication to me. 
Verily, when your astronomers, speaking of sun-matter, term those 
lights and flames "clouds of vapour" and "gases unknown to science" 
(rather!) chased by mighty whirlwinds and cyclones — whereas we know 
it to be simply magnetic matter in its usual state of activity — we 
feel inclined to smile at the expressions. Can one imagine 
the "Sun's fires fed with purely mineral matter" — with meteorites 
highly charged with hydrogen giving the "Sun a far-reaching 
atmosphere of ignited gas"? We know that the invisible sun is 
composed of that which has neither name, nor can it be compared to 
anything known by your science — on earth; and that its "reflection" 
contains still less of anything like "gases," mineral matter, or 
fire, though even we when treating of it in your civilized tongue 
are compelled to use such expressions as "vapour" and "magnetic 
matter." To close the subject, the coronal changes have no effect 
upon the earth's climate, though spots have — and Professor N. 
Lockyer is mostly wrong in his deductions. The Sun is neither a 
solid nor a liquid, nor yet a gaseous globe; but a gigantic ball of 
electromagnetic Forces, the store-house of universal life and 
motion, from which the latter pulsate in all directions, feeding the 
smallest atom as the greatest genius with the same material unto the 
end of the Maha Yug.