A conversation with a friend about NASA

The other day a very close friend and I were talking about re-entry for any manned mission entering the atmosphere. Anyone that reads my blog knows what my opinion is in regards to NASA. After having gone back and forth with my friend on the topic of the re-entry process of any object, manned or unmanned… I only have one question.

But, before I present my question, I want to point out that in the beginnings of NASA we are told that smashing into the atmosphere during re-entry can cause temperatures to rise above more than 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit (about 2,800 degrees Celsius). Not only does the exterior of the re-entry module reach above 5,000 degrees, but there are only a few inches of wall space between the exterior and interior of the cabin. Apparently NASA has developed a self consuming ablative heat shield that can withstand some pretty extreme temperatures (meaning that the heat experienced by the exterior of the object would not affect the temperature inside the object as it falls away from the craft).

But, don’t take my word for it… let’s ask NASA.

The initial conversation that I had with my friend was how I didn’t understand the mechanics of the heat shield they created and how it works so well. For example, in the above video the outside part is made of stainless steel. Stainless steel has a melting point of about 2,500 degrees Fahrenheit. Then, the honeycomb interior ablative heat shield in the video that is between the cabin and the stainless steel is nothing more than polymer fiberglass. Sadly enough, the melting point of this material also doesn’t even come close to being able to withstand 5,000 degrees (it has a melting point of about 2,200 degrees).

One other option that we are presented in the following video is pure silica-tiles (which again, sadly doesn’t have a melting point that reached 5,000 degrees). Although these tiles can withstand about 3,000 degrees, they were not used in the first video, but rather much later. Even still, that presents a problem.

The answer that finally clicked for me after having talked with my friend is the ceramic coating that was used. Apparently, NASA used a spray adhesive that was designed to melt away made of ceramic (which is pretty awesome considering the fact that it has a melting point of almost 6,900 degrees). If you spray enough of this stuff on and also consider the fact that re-entry time wasn’t anything more than a few minutes at most, this answer makes a lot of sense. However, the self consuming ablative heat shield in the first video was actually behind the stainless steel (notated throughout the entire first video with no mention of a ceramic outer layer). Again, the ablated material that was designed to dissipate upon re-entry in the first video was not on the outside of the stainless steel.  But, that is beside the point. Just for argument’s sake, let’s assume that the ceramic coating was applied in the first video. It very well could have been despite not being mentioned. Although I am still looking, the farthest back that I have been able to find this ceramic ablation in use by NASA only goes back as far as the early 1990’s.

This 1960’s document shows that re-entry exceeded the melting point of silica by more than 1,000 degrees. While this 1960’s document shows that the primary ablator  used during that time was 99.8% silica.

After having had this conversation with my friend and totally setting aside the conflicts that arise with re-entry (which was a lot of fun, because it made me evaluate and think, which is something I enjoy to do)… all it did was cause me to ask a new question.

Let’s assume that the stance my friend holds is the correct one.

With that, here is the question…

What happened to re-entry exceeding temperatures of 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit (about 2,800 degrees Celsius and above)?

yep.png

I guess they realized that such a temperature was a little too outlandish, so they dropped it down a bit. Who knows… it’s probably just me being ignorant. Good ol’ Nye or Tyson can probably solve it for us.

7ce

I am not claiming to have answers. I am presenting questions.

He’s going the distance. He’s going for… NASA

As of this month, NASA’s Curiosity Rover has apparently been on the surface of Mars for five years covering a distance of almost 10 miles on the alien terrain. With this new update from NASA and the announcement of five long years of success and counting for the Mars Rover, I decided to chime in.

Now, there is the obvious question; who took this photo seeing as to how Curiosity is the larger of the robots supposedly roaming Mars? The shot is taken from above, which rules out any of the other robots as an answer, let alone the fact that their locations are vastly spread apart.

shot.png

But that isn’t today’s post. No, today I wanted to ask a different question. But before I ask my question, let’s watch this one minute video that breaks down the basics of how the rover is actually driven by sending signals from earth and back.

So basically, in a nutshell we are to believe that NASA is sending a signal through earth’s atmosphere, across the vacuum of space, through Mars’ atmosphere, and back.

Okay, here we go…

Mars is literally supposed to be 33.9 million miles away. The closest is has ever gotten is 3.5 million miles away. Please tell me how you expect me to believe that you are sending a signal that far while also calculating the exact location the signal needs to hit in order to reach its destination when taking into account that you are spinning 1,000 miles an hour. Let alone the fact that Mars is traveling a speed that is supposed to be 66,500 miles an hour while also spinning at about 960 miles per hour as well. Couple that together with the fact that it can take anywhere between 4 to 24 minutes for the signal from earth to reach its destination. Let’s just say that by the time the signal from earth gets there, the rover and the planet are no longer in the same location.

Then there is the issue with the axis rotation of both planets. What happens when the signal being sent and the location of the receiver are on opposing sides as shown here?

sent.png

Now, before you get your panties in a twist and start spitting silly things at me like “they have satellites for that dumb-dumb“, take a look at this. In this NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory video link we have NASA claiming that they can send a signal through the freaking sun from earth to Mars and back. Sure, the file may lose some of its data, but we can always “photoshop” that back in later… which is why they take a vacation that week. This still doesn’t change the fact that they are claiming they could send data through the sun if they wanted to. Give me a freaking break people. Someone, please show me that awesomeness in real life. I want to see someone send a signal from one side of the earth to the other without going around it. No, instead… let’s do what NASA does. Send the signal through the planet. If they can do it with the sun, should be no problem, right?

If they can send a signal through the sun while still only losing parts of the data, then wouldn’t they be able to send a signal through the earth as well? Because, heck… seems to me that when the earth and Mars are in awkward positions like the illustration above, that’s all they’re doing.

That signal will just go right on through… don’t worry about it.

SONY DSC

Anyway, this rant has run its course. I am not claiming to know anything. All I am getting at here is this. Based on the information that NASA presents to us about what they are actually capable of with the aid of modern technology, we should be able to do a lot more as a civilian civilization. For example, if we can send a signal 33.9 million miles away while passing said signal information through the freaking sun, then why in the universe do I live in a world where I sometimes lose cell phone reception? Seems to me like the human race should already have that one solved.

But hey, who am I kidding. I’m ignorant and just don’t understand science and math. If I understood me some learnin‘, this stuff would add up. Heck, better yet… why not just do some research on your own? A great place to start would be Devon Island’s Roving the Arctic.

Space is fake.

Either that, or NASA needs to start up its own cell phone provider company to help fund projects. Seems like their coverage would be out of this world.

verizon-can-you-hear-me-now-guy

Space, the final frontier of discrepancies

I am no scientist, nor do I claim to have any bit a smarts in me wee-pea-brain. But, I can’t help but look at the following images and ask myself if NASA seems to have some continuity issues here. Observationally speaking, the images below don’t really match up.

space1.png

I just can’t help but notice the dissimilarities here. Look at how much closer those rings seem to have gotten while also becoming more in tune with how they would act if gravitational attraction on a cosmic scale were an actual factor. What I mean by that is this… the photo on the left seems to suggest that the rings are somehow offset from the sphere, and as a result somehow defy the way that gravity is supposed to act in the vacuum of space.

Come to think of it, I have looked at Saturn a few times in my life through a telescope. And not once have I ever observed its rings in a geometrical formation around the sphere such as the 2016 NASA photo seems to suggest. No, instead I have always observed it to be much like what we see in the image on the left (offset; defying the centrifugal momentum gravity would place on the rings). Why is it that this inconsistency exists? Why is it that what NASA shows us regarding this celestial body does not match what we can actually observe on our own when looking through a telescope? Apparently, the more expensive your telescope, the more it effects where the rings are positioned in relation to Saturn as a sphere.

Seems logical…

But it doesn’t stop there. If you go back and look at any of the images from 1960 and compare them to today’s NASA images, there are a lot of things that don’t seem to line up. Don’t get me wrong, I understand that the “quality” of a photo changes the way that the image will appear. I understand how focus works. I’ve used a camera. That will however… not change the shape or features of the image to the degree that we see here.

space2.png

Apparently, when you increase the resolution of an image the shape of that image and its features also change. I didn’t know that was how it worked. How ignorant of me. Speaking of shapes… the science people of today seem to suggest that the earth isn’t actually round at all. None of the planets are, apparently. Nope… they are oblate. And according to good ol’ Neil, the earth is pear shaped, because that makes sense.

If that is true, then why are all of the NASA images of any planet showing us something perfectly round? As you can see in the photo on the left of Jupiter, it doesn’t appear to be a perfect circle (which goes along with what scientists tell us about the shape of the earth and other heavenly bodies today). Why then are all of the photos of every planet including the earth perfectly spherical in shape today? They are either round or they aren’t. They can’t be both. Someone needs to get with Neil and Bill to clear all of that up.

Anyway, I feel like this rant has run its course. I just don’t feel that the drastic differences we see in the above images should exist over such a short amount of time. Something has got to give. Either the images from the 60’s were forged… or the images from today are forged. And since I can look through a telescope on my own and see roughly the same thing that was shown in the 60’s, I am inclined to agree with them. On the other hand, I can drop today’s NASA images into Photoshop and by changing the opacity to show where most NASA “photos” have been cropped, edited, or cloned in some way (making them no longer a photo, but a composite – which is a fancy way of saying, drawing). With that, I am more inclined to believe that the images provided to use today are the ones that are fake.

Having said that, here you go… rant actually over. Space is fake.

Someone explain these inconsistencies, please.

And if your attempt of an explanation is simply Googling one phrase, clicking the first video you find, and sending it to me… nice try, but no thanks. If you actually started looking closer at this stuff, you would be asking these types of questions, too.

But who are we kidding… right? I am ignorant.

NASA and the bible battle it out over the stars

Twinkle, twinkle little star. How I wonder what you are.

2

You know, I have spent most of my life just simply believing what I am told (as most people tend to do without realizing it). Over the course of the last two years I came to a few conclusions of my own regarding what we are told about the sun, moon, and stars. And sure enough, these days NASA is the major component that tends to tell us what we should think regarding the heavenly bodies above us. I could ramble for a little while on why I think NASA is a joke, but instead… you can just click here to view a few personal reasons why I have chosen to step away from what they tell us.

And with a need to look elsewhere for information about the objects in the sky, what better place to look than my KJV bible. But, before I take a glance at what the word has to say regarding these celestial bodies, let’s take a look at what good ol’ NASA says the stars are.

According to NASA the stars are nothing more than big balls of gas. Stars are born in the nebula of gas and dust. You can tell how hot a star is by what color it is. Red stars are not as hot as blue stars. Our sun is a yellow star. Although the sun, which is a star according to NASA… looks big to us, it is actually just a medium sized star (nothing great about it). It only looks big because the earth is so close to it.

Now, the funny thing to consider about what NASA tells us regarding these big balls of gas and dust known as nebula is the simple fact that it’s all nothing more than a bunch of cartoons. Everything that NASA presents is nothing more than artist illustrations. But, hey… don’t take my word for it. Let’s meet just one out of many of their countless space artists, Robert Hurt. He sure is proud of what he draws and how it so quickly becomes NASA fact (if you draw it, the Hubble telescope will find it). But hey, I didn’t say that. This one comes right out of the horses mouth.

Now, if you do enough NASA artist-illustrator digging you will find quite a few illustrators with the same story. They create their concepts out of “data” and fill in the blanks with their “imagination“. And then, shortly after that they are shocked to find that their imaginations have become the data. I find it so funny how that works.

Okay… so, if NASA’s concept of the sun, moon, and stars is simply speculative cartoon renderings garnished as factual data, is it possible that they have missed the mark and that perhaps there is another explanation for what we see when we look up toward the heavens? Considering the fact that everything NASA gives us is CGI, let’s go with a yes.

With that, what does the bible say?

SSS-Six-Days-5-stage

For starters, let’s just stick with the earth, sun, and moon. First off, we are told by NASA and their sister companies that the earth is moving in five directions at once and that relative to us the sun is the one not moving. Why is it then that there are more than 65 verses that tell us that it is the sun and moon that moves and not the earth?

I Chronicles 16:30 – “…the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved….”

Ecclesiastes 1:5 – “The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.”

Or, what about that one time when God commanded the sun and moon to be still? It wasn’t the earth that stood still. It was the sun and moon. According to gravity and the mechanics of the Copernican Principle of Evolutionary Heliocentric Cosmology… had the earth stopped spinning, everything and everyone would have instantly died. But that’s not what happened.

Joshua 10:13 – “And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.”

Not to mention once again the fact that NASA says the sun isn’t great and is nothing more than a star. My bible says that it is one of the two “great” lights and that the stars were made also (meaning that the stars are separate).

1 Corinthians 15:41 – “There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars…”

Honestly, I have way more to say about the topic of modern cosmology vs the bible. But, I don’t want to overload you in one single post. We will consider this as a part one and I will post on it some more in the near future.

For now, we will conclude with this; NASA presents us with drawings that eventually become considered fact. Absolutely everything we are told is 100% opposite of what the bible says. Bible says great… NASA, not so great. Bible says it doesn’t move… NASA, it moves. Bible says stars are different that the sun… NASA, the sun is no different.

If we as Christians are going to take a stand against something like human evolution by believing that we are all descendant of Adam, then why are we so quick to side with a world of modern science based Gnostic teachers when what they teach is literally the exact opposite of what the bible says regarding creation… not to mention the fact that what they teach is the foundation for human evolution to begin with (something we already admit to be wrong)?

I don’t understand it.

Part one of NASA and the Bible battle it out over the stars rant finally over. I will pick up on this later.

But who are we kidding, right? I clearly am ignorant.

 

The Great American Eclipse of 2017

On Monday, August 21st we have the Great American Eclipse happening. It is a pretty exciting thing indeed to have such an event taking place across the entire continent of North America. With that in mind, I have been thinking on it quite a bit… and honestly, I have one major question.

c-1920

But, before I ask my question we need to clarify how it all works. Bear with me for a moment while I try to elaborate on what we need to know to grasp how these bodies orbit or spin in relation to one another. Hopefully this is written in a way that it isn’t too hard to follow.

So… here we go.

To make one complete rotation in 24 hours, a point near the equator of the earth must move at close to 1,000 miles per hour (1,600 km/hr). The speed gets less as you move north, but it’s still a good clip throughout the United States. With that being the case, for simplicity sake, we will say that the earth spins at 1,000 miles per hour while making one full revolution within a 24 hour period. Within the course of one full rotation, the earth spins a total of 24,000 miles in 24 hours (seems simple enough).

The Moon orbits the earth at a speed of 2,288 miles per hour (3,683 kilometers per hour). During this time it travels a distance of 1,423,000 miles (2,290,000 kilometers) for one full revolution. The sidereal month is the time it takes to the moon to make one complete orbit around Earth. This is about 27.32 days. The synodic month is the time it takes the Moon to reach the same visual phase. This varies notably throughout the year, but averages around 29.53 days.

This would mean that one full revolution for the moon takes close to 27 or 30 full 24 hour periods. This would then further imply that the earth would in essence spin on its axis a total of 27 to 30 times while the moon itself completes one single revolution. In other words the moon during one full 24 hour period would have traveled only a total of 54,912 miles. This is roughly 1,368,088 miles shy of completing one full revolution.

To better grasp what I am getting at, the following video is a great animated visualization of these two bodies and their respective speeds of motion (the earth spinning on its axis and the moon orbiting the earth). This video makes it seem a lot less complicated than I just did, for sure.

In this video you will notice that both bodies are moving from West to East. The earth spins on its axis in an eastward direction. The moon orbits the earth in an eastward direction as well. With that in mind, both of these objects move from west to east in their respective speeds. This is something we can all agree upon I hope. The earth is going one speed. The moon is going another speed. They both travel in the same direction.

Seems simple enough…

There is however a major error that occurs when you consider the two speeds and the fact that the earth is generating a full revolution at more than 27 times that of the moon’s speed. As a result, although the Moon is moving to the east relative to the earth, the much faster westward motion of the sky is carrying it to the west, so despite its eastward motion relative to the center of the Earth, it rises in the east and sets in the west, just like any other celestial body.

To better grasp what I am rambling about, go back and watch that video again. You will notice that although the earth and moon are both traveling eastward, the earth’s greater speed is causing the moon to appear to travel east to west rather than west to east in relevance to the observer from ground level on the earth.

The point here is simply this; although the moon travels from the west in an eastward direction, the earth spins so fast that it causes the observer from ground level to see the moon traveling backwards from east to west instead. With this in mind, go back and watch the animation one last time to see what I am talking about.

Now, assuming that I haven’t lost you… here is the question.

Despite the fact that both the earth and the moon are traveling from west to east, the relative motion of both bodies causes the moon to appear to be traveling backwards from east to west. If this is the case (which it is) please… someone explain to me how in the world is the Great American Eclipse on the 21st is apparently occurring from West to East?

1

This absolutely defies the Copernican Principle.

Again, if the moon due to relativity appears to the observer to be traveling from east to west, how in the world is this eclipse happening from west to east? Someone, please explain to me how this doesn’t totally disprove the Copernican Principle of Heliocentric Cosmological Evolution?

This eclipse is only going to last like 4 hours across the United States. But before we look at the math behind this… let’s let Neil Degrasse Tyson explain real quick how math surpasses our senses. Don’t trust what you can see, touch, or feel… No, instead, trust the math.

With that in mind, let’s look at some math real quick. In order for the moon to defy our senses, no longer appearing to travel from east to west despite the fact that it supposedly isn’t, it would inevitably need to somehow speed up and begin traveling in an eastward direction faster than that of the earth’s spin.

And since it will only take 4 hours for the moon to cross North America on the 21st, this would then mean that the moon is somehow no longer traveling (according to math) 1,423,000 miles in the course of 720 hours. No, instead… on the 21st it will magically have sped up from 2,288 miles per hour to a whopping 69,644 miles per hour so as to defy the east to west observational conundrum.

Hhhmmmmm… I don’t know why, but this bible verse seems to come to mind.

And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; – Luke 21:25

Who are we kidding though, I am clearly just ignorant.

To the average observer here on earth the moon travels from east to west. But, on the 21st it will be doing its own thing. Don’t worry about it. Just let the math do the talking. Like Neil Degrasse Tyson said, we can’t trust what we see anyway. The science guys will explain this one away. Keep on letting them do your thinking for you.

What does NASA have to say? 

Wrong!!!

Whatever… rant over.
Space is fake.

The ISS and the Blue Screen of DEATH

So, today the Soyuz MS-05 Docked to the International Space Station, bringing along with it three new NASA crew members. Considering the fact that NASA changes crew members on the ISS all the time, this isn’t really all that spectacular. Unless of course, you stop and consider the actual severity of it all and how it tends to play out the same way every single time. If you want to, you can watch the entire video below. But, honestly I will just hit the highlights for you.

For starters, the ISS is roughly 250 miles above the surface of the earth in an area known as the thermosphere. In this area of the atmosphere, the temperatures can rise to nearly 3,500 degrees F. This is a rather peculiar predicament when we consider the high quantity of aluminum that exists on the outer portion of the ISS (the melting point of aluminum is only 1,200 degrees F).

Not only does the ISS exist in this hot region of space below the exosphere, but it is traveling at nearly 17,150 MPH. At this speed it only takes the ISS an hour and a half to do one full revolution around the earth. That is pretty freaking fast if you ask me. To put this into perspective, that is about 5 miles a second.

That right there has me asking one simple question about G force.

How in the world is someone able to withstand a constant pull of more than 9G while moving at that speed for that long? G force is based on the radius of motion accompanied by speed. And if the astronauts on the Soyuz are reaching a speed of 17,000 MPH with a radius of 6.371 million meters (radius of the earth) during acceleration, they are experiencing a constant pull of more than 9G the entire trip to the ISS. How in the world are they reaching that speed with only a 200 mile window between them and their destination? At 5 miles a second it would have passed up the ISS by 100 miles in less than 60 seconds. And, how are they not blacking out? Someone has to stay conscious if they intend to dock without crashing headlong into the ISS at more than 5 miles a second… right? And before you tell me that there is zero G, they are in the thermosphere… not the exosphere. The thermosphere is still an atmosphere rich area. So… please explain how they aren’t blacking out. And then, when they do dock at that obnoxious of a speed how is it that they are not bumping one another completely off course out of control? One little bump or unanticipated nudge would knock the ISS off of its current orbital path by more than 5 miles a second into a new direction. One little misstep nudge could have the ISS 10 miles away in less than two seconds. How is it logically possible for a docking to even occur when you consider these things as a reality?

1

With all of this type of stuff in mind I would like to take a moment to point out the NASA routine for docking onto the ISS. For starters, make sure that you get some super legit footage of the crew as they approach (clearly showing that they are traveling faster than you are in order to catch up to you while clearly not being at an altitude of 200 miles high).  Then… when they dock, make sure that you are not on the sun lit side of the earth according to protocol as usual (doing this helps make the illusion of a 17,150 MPH collision between two manned objects seem plausible). They are always on the dark side when the dock occurs leaving very little to be seen. Then, when the sun comes back around all of the work is magically done with everyone at ground control applauding the diligent efforts of everyone involved (every time).

unnamed

And of course… what NASA docking onto the ISS wouldn’t be complete without the dreaded blue screen of death. That’s right, people… that major moment when the cabins have pressurized and we are opening the hatch to bring the two crews together the camera goes blue (every single time). And whala!!! Just like you know NASA does every time, the camera comes back on just in time for that money shot of all the crew members standing in a row with their headsets on ready to talk to the public with smiling faces (because, you know… that wasn’t just a life and death situation just now). Apparently all Astronauts have nerves of iron. Their blood pressure isn’t through the ruff right now or anything…

Let’s totally forget the fact that the crew members in the Soyuz were wearing totally different outfits when they took off. Let’s totally forget that they just also spent more than two hours reach speeds of 17,000+ MPH with a radial velocity of more than 9G’s for the entire ride (the average person blacks out at 5G). But hey, no big deal… no sweat. No pale faces. No need to check vitals after going that fast in that short of a time while creating an intentional head on collision while on the verge of a blackout with a $150 billion dollar piece of equipment. We will check vitals after the interview.

Give me a break, people. There is no physical way for two opposing objects traveling at that speed to connect with such grace.

NASA is a liar. And that is all there is to it.

If you think I am making this stuff up, go find me footage of any astronauts passing through the airlock for either a spacewalk or during a docking/departure. You will not find it, because there is none. All you will ever find is the blue screen of death. And of course, today was no different.

Fake!!!

But don’t take my word for it… let’s watch this G force compilation.

The Dalton Minimum and the Year without Summer

I first learned about solar minimum when Sarah and I went on vacation about a month ago when we went to the Fort Davis Observatory in West Texas.

Solar minimum is the period of least solar activity in the 11 year solar cycle of the sun. During this time, sunspot and solar flare activity diminishes, and often does not occur for days at a time. The date of the minimum is described by a smoothed average over 12 months of sunspot activity, so identifying the date of the solar minimum usually can only happen 6 months after the minimum takes place.

But, what about solar minimums that last for a decade at a time?

The sun apparently goes through just such a cycle. Our last major solar minimum was in the late 1700’s. It was coined the Dalton Minimum. And we are headed for another one.

the-eddy-minimum

As a result of the rapid cooling of the earth, crops were lost, weather patterns were erratic, and earthquakes were rampant. With the mention of such effect this cooling has on the earth’s mantle as well as the resulting earthquakes, it brings me to what is known as The Year without a Summer. While The Year Without a Summer, in 1816, occurred during the Dalton Minimum, the prime reason for that year’s cool temperatures was the highly explosive eruption of Mount Tambora in Indonesia, which was one of the two largest eruptions in the past 2000 years. One must also consider that the rise in volcanism may have been triggered by the solar deficit as there is a high correlation between the interactions.

If you couple these two things together with the fact that we are seeing a spike in volcanic activity today and that we are currently stepping into a new solar minimum one thing is certain. It is no coincidence that recently Yellowstone National Park (which houses the world’s largest volcano) has seen nearly 900 earthquakes in as little as a two week period.

4198926200000578-4624494-image-a-4_1498032299371

According to experts in this field, the current solar minimum is due to hit its lowest point as soon as the early 2030’s. I don’t know about you, but I find this to be rather exciting when you stop and consider the current world stage as a whole (the Vatican, politics, the economy, moral degradation, etc…).

But, to that end… the bible actually mentions a lot about the sun and it’s circuit over the earth. It talks about a coming day when the sun will no longer give its light. When it will be blotted out because of the sins of the world prior to the second coming of Christ and how the sky will be blackened. Sounds a lot like the effects of the Dalton Minimum if you ask me. Only, this time around scientists are suggesting this one is going to be worse.

But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her lightMark 13:24

And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as bloodRevelation 6:12

With all of this in perspective, there is no doubt in my mind that the end will come during my lifetime. Sure, there have been countless generations who have thought that they were the last, and it was not so. Although this is true, I simply need to just point out one thing.

If you want to learn more about the solar minimum that is rapidly coming our way, here is a scientific perspective on what is to come our way along with insights on how the last major solar minimum truly did effect the global economy. And when you stop and consider the world’s current dependence on the economic system for food shipments and distribution (no longer able to self sustain), this next solar minimum is going to be devastating to say the least.

Thanks for reading… and be sure to look into this stuff for yourself. The end is nigh. Have you accepted Christ?

But, who are we kidding? I am clearly just ignorant with an overactive imagination. Nothing like this will happen in your lifetime… maybe.