Get ready for Venus transit 2012!

Coming up on June 5-6 of this year 2012 is a very special astronomical event, the transit of Venus across the face of the sun.

Here is a previous post discussing the orbits of Venus and our earth and the "synodic cycle" of the planet Venus.  That post explains that Venus reached its point of "maximum eastern elongation" (point 2 on the diagram included in that post) on March 27 of this year.  As the earth and Venus have proceeded along their respective orbits, Venus is now nearing point 3 on that diagram, when it begins to pass between the earth and the sun.

Just as the moon passes between earth and our sun each month (at new moon) but does not create a solar eclipse because its orbital plane is tilted by just over five degrees from earth's orbital plane (it only creates a solar eclipse when it passes through new moon at the same time that it is intersecting the earth's orbital plane around the sun at one of the "lunar nodes"), so also Venus often passes between the earth and the sun without transiting the solar disc from our perspective, because the orbital plane of Venus is inclined by about 3.4° from the plane of earth's orbit around the sun. 

The pattern of the orbits of our earth and Venus bring about a visible transit of Venus across the sun's disc in a 243-year cycle, consisting of two transits separated by eight years.  A transit occurred in June of 2004 and another will occur this June 5-6, but the next one after that will not take place until the year 2117.

Here is a useful and fascinating website that discusses the upcoming transit of Venus and how to safely and successfully observe this rare and important celestial event, TransitofVenus.org.  It contains a global map showing the visibility zones for the transit, and (even more helpful) a link to the Transit of Venus Project which will calculate your approximate location through your IP address and give you times for the transit of Venus for your point on the globe (along with a little diagram of the sun and the track of the planet Venus across its solar disc).

The website also contains some excellent historical resources discussing the importance of the Venus transit to modern science (from the seventeenth century onwards).  Future blog posts on this site will discuss the importance to ancient civilizations and the possible links between the important phenomenon of the Venus transit and ancient knowledge.

Carlsbad Caverns, Lechuguilla Cave, and the origin of earth's limestone

One of the most spectacular places I visited while growing up was Carlsbad Caverns National Park in New Mexico.  The accessible portions of the caverns open to the public reach depths of around 800 feet below the surface, and the magnificent "Big Room" is a chamber nearly 4,000 feet long and 255 feet high.

Nearby, in the same National Park grounds, Lechuguilla Cave reaches depths of over 1,600 feet.  The staggering extent of its incredible winding passages is perhaps best appreciated by viewing a 3-D computer map of that cavern system (not open to the public).  One such computer map can be seen in the video embedded below:

These caverns, like many other "solution caves" found on our amazing planet, exist inside of massive limestone formations.  Where did so much limestone come from?

The conventional explanation for the origin of limestone involves warm, shallow inland seas, because conventional geologists argue that almost all limestone deposits resulted from the deposition of the remains of shallow-water marine animals (such as corals, as well as some crustaceans and algaes) that incorporate limestone into their body structures.  

In order to account for limestone deposits that are thousands of feet thick, they must come up with speculative scenarios in which these seas stayed shallow while the geology below them slowly subsided, enabling the successive creation of thicker and thicker deposits over millions of years.  These proposed scenarios are recounted with absolute authority (as if we are certain that this is what happened) and peppered with impressive-sounding terminology.  An example of one such "history" can be found here (describing the supposed processes that created the "reef limestones" that now house the vast caverns of Carlsbad and Lechuguilla).  The National Park Service webpage describing the geology of Carlsbad Caverns similarly refers to a "the uplifted portion of an ancient reef that thrived along the edge of an inland sea more than 250 million years ago during Permian time."

As we have seen in previous blog posts (see for instance "Just So Stories: The White Cliffs of Albion"), hydroplate theory founder Walt Brown provides powerful arguments that the conventional theory about earth's limestone is mistaken, and that the limestone on our planet is compelling evidence of a catastrophic global flood in earth's past.  In an entire chapter dedicated to discussing the origin of limestone in his book on the hydroplate theory (which is available for all readers to access on the web here), Dr. Brown points out that the conventional theory for limestone runs into numerous problems.

One big problem that he cites is the fact that the formation of solid calcium carbonate (CaCO3, various crystal forms of which make up the limestones of the earth) releases a carbon atom, and the amount of limestone on earth today makes the "shallow sea" hypothesis difficult to maintain (see formula below).  

 H2O (l) + CO2 (aq) +CaCO3 (s) <==> Ca (aq, 2+) + 2HCO3 (aq, 1-)

After pointing out the basic two-way chemical formula by which water dissolves limestone (left side of the formula moving to the right side of the formula) or by which limestone precipitates out of water (right side of the formula moving to the left side of the formula), Dr. Brown writes:

Here is the problem. The above chemical equation shows that for every carbon atom precipitated in limestone, a carbon atom is released in CO₂. At the earth’s surface, this gas enters the atmosphere. Had all limestone slowly precipitated in surface waters, as much carbon would have been released into the atmosphere (as CO₂) as was precipitated in limestone (as CaCO₃). The earth’s limestone contains more than 60,000,000  × 10¹⁵ grams of carbon. That amount of carbon in the atmosphere and seas would have made them toxic hundreds of times over. Today, the atmosphere and seas contain only (720 + 37,400)  × 10¹⁵ grams of carbon. [from this page in Dr. Brown's online book].

In other words, there simply is not enough carbon in the seas and air today to believe that limestone precipitated primarily in warm shallow seas the way the conventional theorists argue.  Based on the amount of limestone found on earth, the carbon released would have made our planet a very different place if that conventional theory were correct.

Another problem Dr. Brown notes is that limestone-forming marine life today thrives primarily in the shallow portions of the warm oceans within 30 degrees of the equator.  However, limestone is found all over the globe today.  Further, he points out that the typical limestone particle is very small, and that natural forces could not be expected to reduce organic limestone from coral or other marine animal shells to such small sizes (as the particles become smaller and smaller, they become increasingly difficult to break down further).  He also notes that very high magnification available in more recent years shows that the structure of most of the limestone on earth is quite different than organic limestone found in sea organisms (see this page in his online book).

Instead, Dr. Brown argues that most of the limestone found around the globe is of inorganic origin, precipitated in the water that was trapped deep under the earth before it violently escaped to initiate the catastrophic flood.  His theory, which explains the evidence we find around the globe better than the conventional explanation, proposes the following series of events:

Supercritical water (SCW) readily dissolves certain minerals and other solids. [See pages 120–122.] As temperatures rise or as pressures drop in the SCW, these dissolved substances precipitate as “snow.” In the years before the flood, tiny limestone particles precipitated to the subterranean chamber floor as the temperature in the SCW steadily rose. During the flood, the pressure in the escaping water rapidly dropped, so more limestone precipitated and CO₂ gas escaped. Simultaneously, limestone sediments on the chamber floor were swept up to the earth’s surface, where liquefaction sorted the limestone particles into more uniform layers. [See pages 186–197.] 

 

Sediments, eroded during the initial stages of the flood, settled through the flood waters all over the earth. After most of these waters drained into the newly formed ocean basins, limy (CO₂-rich) water filled and slowly migrated through pore spaces between sedimentary particles. 

Plentiful amounts of CO₂ in the atmosphere after the flood provided the necessary “food” to help reestablish earth’s vegetation, including forests. As plants grew and removed CO₂ from the atmosphere, surface waters released additional CO₂, thereby precipitating more limestone. Limestone that precipitated between loose sedimentary grains cemented them together into rocks. Earth’s surface waters are still huge reservoirs of CO₂. Oceans, lakes, rivers, and groundwater hold 50 times more CO₂ than our atmosphere. 

Tiny particles of precipitated limestone are excellent cementing agents when near-saturation conditions exist. Smaller and more irregular particles of limestone readily dissolve; larger particles grow, sealing cracks and gaps. Precipitation within a closely packed bed of sediments (cementation) occurs more readily than precipitation outside the bed. [from this page in Dr. Brown's online book].

This scenario explains the great thickness of many of the limestone formations around the world, including the one that is home to the Carlsbad Cavern and Lechuguilla Cave.  His theory also explains how the earth's limestone caverns (some of them, like Carlsbad, with enormous chambers) and majestic stalagmites and stalactites could have formed in thousands of years following such a catastrophic event, rather than the millions of years usually proposed by conventional theorists:

Acidic groundwater, plentiful during the centuries after the flood, frequently seeped into cracks in limestone rocks, dissolved limestone, and formed underground caverns. As ventilation in caverns improved and plant growth removed CO₂ from the atmosphere, CO₂ escaped from this groundwater. Large quantities of limestone precipitated, rapidly forming stalactites and stalagmites worldwide. [From this page in Dr. Brown's book].

Dr. Brown points out that even today, when stalactites and stalagmites typically grow much more slowly than they would have immediately following the flood (when large amounts of water were draining through freshly deposited limestone), certain conditions can cause rapid formation of limestone features.  He cites Jerry Trout, the National Cave Manager for the  US Department of Agriculture Forest Service, as filming stalactites that grew several inches in a matter of days.

The origin of the earth's abundant limestone is a matter of great interest and one that can draw helpful lines of distinction between competing theories about how our geology came to look the way it does today.  Here again, the evidence appears to be difficult to reconcile with conventional theories, but to be quite consistent with the forces expected to have been present before, during, and after the flood according to the hydroplate theory explanation.

Review of Chris Carter's book, Science and Psychic Phenomena

The following is a review which I wrote of Chris Carter's Science and Psychic Phenomena: The Fall of the House of Skeptics (2012), on the Amazon website:

Chris Carter provides extensive evidence for the existence of awareness and sensitivity beyond what can be explained by conventional models of consciousness and physics.

His discussion and analysis of this evidence (and of those who have created experiments to attempt to demonstrate the existence of psychic phenomena) is fascinating in and of itself. Equally important, however, is his careful analysis of those who have attempted to deny the possibility of the existence of such phenomena. He provides substantial evidence which illustrates that these skeptics often employ double standards and in many cases appear to be motivated by their desire to assert their skeptical dogmas rather than to provide an honest assessment of the data.

He also provides evidence showing that many of the most ferocious critics do not conduct actual experiments themselves but confine themselves to attacking the experiments of others. In the cases in which skeptics have conducted experiments, Chris Carter shows that their results appear to confirm the existence of psychic phenomena. Even these results, however, do not change their minds but are publicly proclaimed to have reinforced the evidence against such phenomena!

Thus Chris Carter's book is important for (at least) two reasons: it provides extensive calm and deliberate analysis of the evidence supporting the existence of powers that go beyond the conventional "scientific" paradigm, and it also provides a fascinating look at the extent to which some skeptics will go to deny such a possibility, even to the point of what can only be seen as either self-delusion or deliberate dishonesty. 

Chris Carter's book provides the results of experiment after experiment which provide evidence that the hasty dismissal of the possibility of any form of psychic awareness in humans or animals is premature and ill-advised.  

Some of the results appear to be strong enough to qualify as actual "proof" that some such abilities exist, but one need not go that far -- it is sufficient to simply say that more research is warranted and that (in light of all these results) keeping an open mind on this subject is absolutely justified.

Also documented in Chris Carter's book is the extent to which skeptics and "debunkers" will go to deny the possibility of any abilities that do not fit within their worldview.  Of course, the existence of such abilities, which are difficult if not impossible to reconcile with the very foundations of the modern materialistic paradigm, would require a complete retooling of those foundations.  

If such powers are proven to exist, it would in fact suggest that some of the core tenets of that materialistic paradigm would have to be jettisoned altogether (such as the assertion that consciousness is a completely physical phenomenon, merely a byproduct of chemical and electrical interactions within the physical organ of the brain -- an assertion that Chris Carter challenges quite thoroughly in this essay, which I have also referenced in previous blog posts).  

This possibility is quite threatening to the "skeptic debunker" worldview, as it opens up the possibility of consciousness that is separate from the physical world -- with implications for the possibility of life after death, etc. -- and ultimately upends the entire materialistic "faith."  The threatening nature of these implications to this worldview probably explains the vehemence of the reaction by the defenders of that worldview against evidence showing the possibility that psychic phenomena (or "psi" for short) could exist.

Chris provides evidence of this angry and often irrational backlash by those who don't want to admit that further research is warranted, and of the regular double-standard that is employed to discredit any results that might show psi activity (no matter how well-constructed the experiment) and to inflate the importance of any results that appear to deny the possibility (no matter how small the sample or how problematic the methodology).

One of the most powerful quotations that Chris cites in the book is from a retired US Army colonel who was involved in a US Army Research Institute-sponsored investigation of psi phenomena (called the "EHP study" for "Enhanced Human Performance") and who was disgusted by the double-standard that he saw employed.  The colonel's lengthy critique of the biased study ends with these words:

What, then, are we to conclude about the EHP report? ... First, it is significant that a determined group of psi debunkers could find no "smoking gun" and no "plausible alternative" to the psi hypothesis. . . . Second, we should worry about the fact that the highest scientific court in the land [the National Research Council, a branch of the National Academy of Sciences], operated in such a biased and heavy-handed manner, and that there seems to be no channel for appeal or review of their work.  What, we may ask, are they afraid of?  Is protecting scientific orthodoxy so vital that they must deny evidence and suppress contrary opinion?  94 [ellipses in original].

This is a question one could ask about many subjects (such as the evidence that the timeline of ancient human civilization is quite different from the conventional paradigm taught in history classes from kindergarten to the university, or that contact across the Atlantic and Pacific with the Americas started thousands of years before Columbus). It is certainly appropriate to ask it in regards to psychic phenomena, as the Army colonel quoted above did.  

It is also interesting to consider the possibility that the answer to the colonel's question ("What, we may ask, are they afraid of?") might be the same in all of these apparently different fields (the field of psychic phenomena and the field of ancient human history).  In other words, is it possible that the answer will show that human beings are "something more" than some people want us to know?  That we have capabilities that some people would prefer we never knew we had?  Is it possible that feeding people the materialist fiction seems to some to be preferable, even if it is not the truth?  Why would some people want so badly to tell the general public, "don't get any ideas about humanity being anything but what we tell you it is"?

Aside from these extremely important and interesting questions, the research presented in Chris Carter's book resonates strongly with some other news items explored in previous blog posts here, such as the recent report of two herds of elephants traveling a great distance to mourn the death of their friend and benefactor Lawrence Anthony.  How did they know he had died?  

The evidence that animals may have awareness that is difficult to explain from a strictly physical or materialistic framework also resonates with the work of Rupert Sheldrake, who wrote the foreword to Chris Carter's book, and whose experiments (and the reaction of the skeptics) are discussed in the book (the graph above is based upon the results of one widely-reported series of experiments involving a dog in Manchester, England named "Jaytee," who appeared to demonstrate sensitivity to the return of his owner, even when she was driven to random places miles away and given signals to return at random times, being driven home in a variety of unfamiliar modes of transportation).

In sum, Chris Carter's book is an extremely interesting and well-presented analysis of a topic of great importance.  Highly recommended.

Could Methuselah have lived so long because radioactivity originated with the flood?

In the previous post, we looked at just a few of the many pieces of evidence which seem to be best explained by the theory that most of the radioactive isotopes found on earth (especially in the crust) were created by the powerful forces released in the events surrounding a cataclysmic worldwide flood.  These forces may well have included powerful plasma discharges created by the generation of enormous voltages through the piezoelectric effect.

The possibility that the majority of earth's radioactivity originated in a catastrophic event, and that this radioactivity was not present at the formation of the earth runs counter to most conventional theories about earth's ancient history.  This possibility also has startling ramifications for human history, especially if (as most traditions around the world maintain) mankind was alive before this catastrophic radiation-producing event and if some members of the human race somehow lived through it.  As we noted in that previous blog post, one of the most significant possible ramifications is the conclusion that: "those who lived prior to the creation of so much radioactive material may have lived longer than we do today."

The hydroplate theory of Dr. Walt Brown appears to explain many pieces of evidence involving earth's radioactive isotopes which pose serious problems for conventional explanations.  The hydroplate theory also explains many other pieces of geological evidence on our planet which give conventional theories a hard time (for a list of a few of them, see this previous post and this previous post).  In discussing the possibility that radioactivity originated during the events surrounding a global flood, Dr. Brown notes that the absorption of newly-created radioactive material into human bodies following the flood could have (and almost certainly would have) had a negative impact on human lifespans:

The new isotopes (heavy or light) produced during the flood are mixed with all that we eat, drink, and breathe. On rare occasions, these “strange isotopes” interfere with our very complex cellular machinery. [. . .] At the atomic level, this damage accumulates in a somewhat random manner, even among identical twins, because the “strange isotopes” that we take into our bodies become “bullets” in tiny but rapid versions of “Russian roulette.” The potential damage during each roulette game is extremely small; however, we each play thousands of games a second. [from this page in the online version of Dr. Brown's book, In the Beginning]. 

To support this possibility, he notes that the Hebrew scripture recording lifespans before and after the Genesis flood degrades sharply immediately after the flood (beginning with Noah's son Shem) and continuing in a negative exponential decay curve (see graph above).  

The fact that the lifespans listed in Genesis follow such a curve is quite significant.  Dr. Brown argues:

If the life spans of the postflood patriarchs had been mistranslated, randomly selected, or made up by someone with no knowledge of higher mathematics, a linear fit would be much more likely than an exponential decay.

 

However, the thousands of isotopes produced in the fluttering crust during the flood would exit the crust and enter the biosphere—and living organisms—at a rate proportional to their concentration in the crust. So, the concentration of these “strange isotopes” in the biosphere and within organisms would rapidly increase initially, but would level off after some period of time. In other words, life spans would experience an exponential decay.

If there really were such lengthy lifespans prior to the advent of radioactive isotopes on earth, think of what kind of knowledge could have accumulated.  With extended lifespans like those recorded in Hebrew scriptures, you could -- as a grown adult -- have known not only your father and grandfather but also your grandfather, great-grandfather, and even great-great grandfather!  Imagine what subjects you could have discussed with your great-great grandfather if you could both talked and worked with him for years or even decades while both of you were in your prime of life.  Imagine what things you yourself could learn given active health for many more decades longer than what is normal today.

Such a theory could go a long way towards explaining how mankind was able to demonstrate knowledge of subtle phenomena such as the precession of the equinoxes at an extremely ancient date.  As has  been pointed out in previous posts, "to perceive precession requires the ability to measure the location of stars, a method of recording those locations, and written records to pass those observations down to subsequent generations of observers, because one human lifetime is not enough to see a change" (as precession only moves the sky by one degree in 71.6 years).  

If lifespans were significantly longer prior to the flood, it would go a long way towards explaining the sophisticated astronomical knowledge demonstrated in extreme antiquity (in fact, in the earliest texts to survive from thousands of years BC).

Of course, it is not necessary to believe that humans had incredibly long lifespans in the remote past in order to accept other aspects of the hydroplate theory.  The hydroplate theory does not stand or fall on the possibility of long lifespans, or even on the possibility that radioactivity originated in the flood.  There is enough other evidence that is better explained by the hydroplate theory than by conventional theories to warrant careful consideration of the merits of the hydroplate theory regardless of one's position on long lifespans or radioactivity.  

However, the possibility that a cataclysm in earth's ancient history created radioactivity, and that this new radioactivity shortened human lifespans is worth careful investigation. 

What can Maat Mons on Venus tell us about the origins of radioactivity on earth?

The presence of radioactivity on earth, and its unique characteristics, cause a multitude of problems for conventional theories of earth's origins and geological history.  Some of these difficulties have been mentioned in previous blog posts, such as "The important questions surrounding earth's radioactive isotopes."  

Many more are discussed in much greater detail in the section of Dr. Walt Brown's book about the hydroplate theory, in which he examines numerous pieces of evidence related to radioactivity and compares the conventional explanation for this evidence to the hydroplate theory's explanation.  This page in particular in the online version of his book (all of which is available online for examination by anyone for free) goes through numerous pieces of evidence point-by-point.

On that page, Dr. Brown explains the evidence which supports his assertion that: "The inner earth is hot, because the flood produced large-scale movements, frictional heating, electrical activity, and radioactivity within the earth. Similar events never happened on Mars or Venus. Therefore, the interiors of Mars and Venus should be colder."

This assertion is quite startling, and if correct quite significant.  It flies in the face of the assertions of conventional theorists that almost all of the radioactive material in the universe (including that found on earth) was produced inside stars and supernovas in particular, then expelled (some of it finding its way into forming planets).  Whereas the conventional theory argues that radioactive material was present in the original formation of the planets of our solar system (including our earth), the hydroplate theory says that unique and powerful forces on earth (accompanying cataclysmic geological events surrounding a global flood) created most of the radioactive elements on earth.  

Dr. Brown does not argue that no other forces can produce radioactive isotopes -- for example, it is obvious that the sun's radiation does create isotopes in the atmosphere.  However, while the sun's radiation does produce some radioactive isotopes as well, it is not responsible for all or even most of the radioactive elements on earth (it is not responsible for uranium, for instance).

The hydroplate theory argues that powerful forces surrounding the flood created intense electrical discharges.  The massive electrical forces created plasma discharges and bremsstrahlung radiation which created the radioactive isotopes in earth's crust.  They were not uniformly concentrated throughout the earth but only in the crust, and where this activity took place, the crust is still warmer than average to this day.

These forces, as well as other massive movements of rock (for more on those see here) caused by forces surrounding the global flood heated up the core of the earth to levels not found on our neighboring rocky planets Mars and Venus, according to the hydroplate theory.

Is there evidence that Mars and Venus are cooler on the inside than we would expect from the conventional theory (which argues that all three originated as molten balls and which denies that earth experienced a catastrophic flood, and would certainly deny that our planet's internal heat -- and radioactivity -- is a result of that catstrophic event)?  There appears to be!

Dr. Brown points out that recent measurements taken by the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter shows that the crust of Mars deforms less than scientists expect during seasonal shifts of its ice caps, and that in fact the weight of the cap does not deform the crust as much as it should if the interior were as warm as scientists expected.  This evidence is discussed in a 2008 article by Dr. Matthias Grott entitled "Is Mars Geodynamically Dead?"

Dr. Brown also points out that evidence from the surface of Venus imply that its interior is nowhere near as hot as we would expect based upon conventional theories.  For example, the enormous terrain feature shown above, Maat Mons, on the surface of Venus rises five miles in height (26,400 feet).  By comparison, Mt. Everest rises only about 12,000 feet to 15,000 feet from its base (depending on estimates).  If the crust interior of Venus were as hot as it should be based upon most conventional theories, it would not support such a massive mountain.  

Dr. Brown points out that the atmosphere of Venus is about "860°F—so hot its surface rocks must be weak or 'tarlike.' (Lead melts at 622°F and zinc at 787°F)."  If the planet really evolved the way conventional theories say that it did, then much of this heat should have seeped into the crust over the billions of years that it has been orbiting the sun, and Maat Mons would not be expected to hold its steep-sided shape, and the crust would not be expected to support this five-mile-high massif.  

Not only does Maat Mons pose problems for those who argue for a billions-of-years-old Venus, but it also appears to be additional evidence from our other planetary neighbor which supports the idea that earth's interior heat -- and radioactivity -- originated in a catastrophic flood event which did not take place on either of our two neighbors in space.

There are other startling ramifications of the idea that earth's radioactivity may have originated in a cataclysmic event.  For one thing, if humans existed prior to this event, then those who lived prior to the creation of so much radioactive material may have lived longer than we do today.  For another thing, the plasma events that surrounded the cataclysm (perhaps continuing for some centuries afterwards) might have been memorialized in the rock art around the world that many authorities in the emerging science of plasma physics have noticed bear a striking resemblance to plasma phenomena.

In fact, the tremendous impact of this event on human consciousness would be so important that we probably could not understand the evidence of ancient history without taking it into account.  The Mathisen Corollary book attempts to begin the exploration of the important new perspectives that Dr. Brown's theory offers on the mysteries of mankind's ancient past.  Many other examinations of this kind are needed.  The compelling evidence that supports the hydroplate theory is extensive, both on this planet and throughout the solar system.

A few modest photos from today's solar eclipse, 20 May 2012

A few modest photographs of the progress of the disc of the moon moving across the disc of the sun, seen as a projection (not as dramatic as photographs taken through filters looking directly at the sun itself).

As the eclipse reached its maximum, the sky noticeably darkened -- not the way it does at night but the way it looks when there is a large forest fire and the smoke and haze create a strange filter to the normal sunlight.  

All the shadows of the trees took on the shape of a thousand fragmented crescents, similar to the shadows seen in this image.

There are many other (more spectacular) images of the eclipse from around the world available for viewing at various sites, such as here and here.

Birthday of Israel Kamakawiwo'ole

May 20 is the birthday of beloved Hawaiian singer Israel Kamakawiwo'ole, born this day in 1959.  

He is most well-known for his incredible rendition of "Somewhere over the Rainbow" (above).  Here is a link to an NPR segment describing the amazing story behind the recording of that song in 1988, when Brother Iz talked music producer Milan Bertosa into staying at his studio for fifteen more minutes (it was already three in the morning), and then walked in and recorded in one take, accompanied only by his own ukelele.

Here is a link to a previous blog post entitled "What kind of music gives you chills?" which explores the power of music and the impact it can have.  It cites an article that examined songs that have an impact on our "sympathetic nervous system" which concludes, "Music is most likely to tingle the spine, in short, when it includes surprises in volume, timbre and harmonic pattern."  The music of Israel Kamakawiwo'ole is certainly capable of "tingling the spine" and contains all of those elements.

The NPR story cited above also hints at another reason that his music is so powerful and strikes such a chord with listeners.  It quotes Israel's childhood friend and fellow musician Del Beazley:

In Hawaii, we talk about this thing we call mana.  Mana is like an energy that you get. We believe we get ours from the elements first, the Earth, your sky, your ocean, your God, and all that is inside of us. And when we open our mouth to speak, to sing or to play, that's what we let out. But it's that that makes him [Israel] special, because his mana always came out.

Israel often expressed his certainty that the soul continues after the death of the body, and in fact expressed that belief in some of the interview quotations included in that same NPR story.  His music also lives on and continues to convey his positive energy to new generations of listeners.

Rest in peace.  Respect.