Oliver Thewalt

    Oliver Thewalt

    Theoretical Physics | Quantum Biology | Dark Matter Research | Energy Consulting | Creation of Hydrogen ATOM in the Higgs Field >> Vote for Nobel Prize

    LAIC Process

    further information on the LAIC process:
    "the word 'coupling' decribes in technical language the transmission of power via an axis. every motor knows this concept and your car would only drive in one 'gear' if mankind wouldn't understand 'coupling'.

    so we are talking of a transmission from Ionosphere, where the cme's and hard radiation hit on the geomagnetic shielding, a buffer zone, called atmosphere ( like the oil in your gearhousing ) and a second 'black-box system' with it's entry at the litho (stone) sphere.

    The concept of how 'energy' or Solar PULSE is transmitted and exchanged between different media ...


    two solar proton events in that perieod btw, so we can assume that we had a quite active sun ... two Proton events within a month, this is large sunspot action ....

    Feb 17/2020 Feb 17/2205 31 Feb 16/0200 X2/2B N15E48 1574
    Apr 03/1600 Apr 03/2310 45

    solar proton event 1 happened on Feb 17th 1979 at 20:20 h, maximum level was at 22:05, the corelated cme was on Feb 16th at 02:00 UTC and it was an X 2 event from the region N 15 E 48. The proton flux particle count was 31 pfu @ > 10MeV. The sunspot number was 1574

    event 2 only comes with the date, beginning Apr 3rd at 16:00 with a maximum at 23:10, 45 pfu@>10MeV

    so, here you can see, that the solar activity background level was already 'hazardous' in terms of what we know about the solar tectonic coupling.

    To impact on earth and affect the radiation and thus the heat and pressure development in a nucleat powerplant a solar flare must have emitted on 25th to be ahead of the event at the nuclear power plant heat/pressure rise.

    this is the report on the the march 25th flare:
    here is the abstract:

    according to this article the march 25th flare was an X 1 event, which started at shortly before 18:00 at about W 10 N 77.

    If I argue with the solar impact on the nuclear catastrophes, there must have been solar action, right? Here is the evidence for this case.

    the solar background for Fukushima is interesting to observe. I did that online and - live -. I saw the solar proton event, triggered by an M 3 event and warned for a big one comming.

    I listed the potential candidates Asia Japan was on top of the list with few other locations. I still can not understand how NASA and USGS did not warn.

    You can look at it if you a.) look up the solar proton event list, posted above, and b.) whenyou observe the cme activity for the period on LASCO C 3. My tip look at it in 512 resolution first and see a larger chunk of the TIMEline. start feb 18th ...

    The X-ray chart showed an X event, I saved a copy ....

    we cannot control nuclear reactors with sudden magnetic disturbances impacting on them. Too many people are dead for ignoring this lesson.

    the pysical background for the magnetic field disturbance, released by LAIC process (Lithosphere Atmosphere Ionosphere Coupling) and the article on nuclear resonance in magnetic fields and the impact on the subatomic particle speed and spin. With altering orbits around the atom, the decay process in a nuclear powerplant will result under this conditions in increased radiation .... (heat, pressure...)

    as well as the interview with the japanese expert who states that the atmospheric phenomenon was tracked ahead of the earthquake. This fact is the strongest argument the HAARP conspiracy believers are talking about. Nevertheless, the impact was clearly a solar caused event. The tracked atmospheric phenomenon is called a co-seismic event. But the statement from the japanese expert clearly says it was in front of the earthquake and this statement matches with USGS expert statements on the LAI Coupling. The logical implication is the properties of the charged particles and their impact on the a.) global electromagnetic field variations (down to electromagnetic storm) and b.) they local magnetic field which can build up and be 'flashed' by a vortex of downstreaming particles. Like an invisible lightning, but still charge.

    The LAI Coupling describes how solar, highly charged particle storms release static upload in the lithosphere, which builds up in front of earthquakes. This process is observable with contemporary instruments and science. The process is regular science, published, part of the acedemic research and your government komws weeks ahead that a significant earthquake builds up and where.

    Surprise comes with deep rising magma and it's charge and impact on the magnetic and static energy field conditions along certain tectonic active areas. Chernobyl for instance was build exaclty on top of an randomly active fault line. (often the rivers have their beds there and water is needed for the cooling of the plant). There is already credible evidence, that Chernobyl was affected with it's accident by similar pysical laws.

    ?"The satellite technology (remote sensing, ionospheric plasma measurements, GPS TEC) provided opportunity to clarify the physics of the processes chain, occurring during the earthquake process and which we name Lithosphere-Atmosphere-Ionosphere (LAI) coupling. The LAI model created recently, permitted to unite different groups of scientists working in different areas by the common physical mechanism which is able to explain geochemical, atmospheric, geoelectric, thermal and ionospheric anomalies observed within the time interval few weeks before the seismic shock within the area called earthquake preparation area. The LAI model permitted to change the approach of the modern earthquake science to the so called physical precursors of earthquakes. The LAI coupling could explain why some time ago some EM phenomena were considered as not a precursors and possibility for their use in short term earthquake prediction was doubt in great extend by the whole community. Recent major earthquakes rendered to us the dataset completely supporting our model. The only element which is still questioned is the triggering mechanism which will also be discussed in the present paper. "