It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Climate Change: Is Carbon Dioxide the Culprit? No, It's CERN?

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: MamaJ

Surprisingly, you can see what direction cosmic rays come from, and it's not the sun.




posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

I'm with the camp that believes climate change happens due to the Sun's cycles and magnetic field.

I'm not convinced that particle accelerators operating at hella energy doesn't contribute something negative to our magnetosphere.



posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 05:05 PM
link   
a reply to: MamaJ

It really depends on your definition of cosmic rays. All a cosmic ray is, is a very highly-energetic particle traveling at high speed. How much energy does a particle need to have to be a cosmic ray? That depends on who you ask. The physicists I know would not classify a particle from the sun as a cosmic ray, because the sun does not have enough power to produce particles with enough energy to qualify. But is you ask an astronomer, they might consider the solar radiation as cosmic rays.

It's all a matter of intensity.

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 12:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: MamaJ
a reply to: Bedlam

I'm with the camp that believes climate change happens due to the Sun's cycles and magnetic field.


Oddly enough, I believe that it has a lot to do with it as well. Also, it is likely related as well with varying levels of incoming radiation from outside the Solar system. Including cosmic rays...but NOT for the same reason this guy gives.

There is data that would give one to conclude that high level cloud cover levels may be influenced by cosmic ray levels. Changing the overall albedo of a planet, even a tiny bit, can cause non-linear effects on climate.



I'm not convinced that particle accelerators operating at hella energy doesn't contribute something negative to our magnetosphere.


We know a lot about the magnetosphere. Not anywhere near all, but we can measure it really well. The Sun, operating normally, causes all SORTS of constant changes in the ionosphere and magnetosphere. They are not static structures.

I think you are likely confusing power and energy here. It's one of a number of pretty common points of confusion for people that aren't science majors, like temperature and heat.

The total energy that ANY particle accelerator can produce is far less than the electrical energy fed into it. Somewhere, there was a power plant that made the energy. It will have wasted about half as waste heat. Then you lose a few percent delivering it to the accelerator. The accelerator will lose quite a bit more of it to waste heat. And a small amount of what you started off with ends up accelerating particles. When the particles collide with each other or a target, then THAT energy ends up as waste heat. So you're worried about the accelerator part, but you have dumped heat into the atmosphere all along and what was lost is significantly more than what the accelerator actually imparted to the particles.

The actual amount of energy that's dumped into the ecosystem by all the accelerators running all the time would still be a lot less than that dumped into the atmo by, say, running Chicago. So in the scheme of things, it's not a lot. It's just cool and sciencey and ominous looking, though.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 03:34 AM
link   
a reply to: MamaJ

I've read thousands of scientific papers from just about every country and I will say that some countries have more scientific credibility than others. (No offense meant to Nigeria at all, I don't know why it happens). Also remember that many projects and positions are funded through links to various international development programmes.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 06:01 AM
link   
Seems nonsense for several reasons

1) The theory makes no sense
2) It isn't writen or presented like an academic/maths paper
3) The majority of the paper is a general rant, not backed up with evidence or references
4) No partial differentiation
5) Only one source cited, while a real paper of this magnitude would have 20 - 50, probably well over 100, as opposed to the one source here.
6) Basic mathematical and physical concepts are either misunderstood or ouright made up in the paper
7) Basic common sense and the complete lack of heating/warming around cern show the entire thing is a crackpot theoory.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 07:10 AM
link   
Other than his PhD thesis on Roche Limits in 1971, the only place he's been accepted for publication is SCIRP and Nigerian publications, and pretty much every paper is "novel".



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 10:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: MamaJ

It really depends on your definition of cosmic rays. All a cosmic ray is, is a very highly-energetic particle traveling at high speed. How much energy does a particle need to have to be a cosmic ray? That depends on who you ask. The physicists I know would not classify a particle from the sun as a cosmic ray, because the sun does not have enough power to produce particles with enough energy to qualify. But is you ask an astronomer, they might consider the solar radiation as cosmic rays.

It's all a matter of intensity.

TheRedneck


THANK YOU! You explained this perfectly, in a way I couldn't explain!

When the Sun is active with flares and CME's it produces enough energy to create cosmic rays on Earth and that is what I am defending. The Sun also protects us from higher energy cosmic rays ( galactic) is what I understand. The Sun-Earth connection drives our climate and weather. Herein lies what I believe to be the case with climate change.

If CERN or any other particle accelerator produce's enough energy that escapes somehow/someway, it will have an effect. I want to know and research it myself because I am nosey like that and want to know the if's, why's and how's.
edit on 26-10-2016 by MamaJ because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: MamaJ

Yes, it's just a question of power. But if you're talking to a physicist, they won't see solar particles as cosmic rays, because they are so weak relatively.

As for CERN... I really don't see how CERN is going to produce high-energy cosmic rays outside the magnetic containment. The power they use in total is a tiny, minuscule fraction of a fraction of what the sun hits us with every day. They make these high-energy collisions by accelerating a precious few particles to speeds that would approximate a medium-energy cosmic ray, then collide them together to see what falls out. This destroys the particle.

They are counting particles at CERN... if more than a couple leaked out, they'd know about it. That's far too much energy in those particles to have them leaking out all over the place. And just a couple? A small fraction, again, of what the galaxy/universe/great beyond is hitting us with every day.

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 03:28 PM
link   
So thats the answer the the Young Sun Paradox! it was space aliens using a particie accelerator on the primitive Earth.

Meanwhile every climate scientist for the past 150 years has been totally wrong. About nearly everything.


And the Earth is probably flat



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a reply to: AndyMayhew

Thanks for the contribution, couldn't have went to sleep tonight without it.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 07:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck

As for CERN... I really don't see how CERN is going to produce high-energy cosmic rays outside the magnetic containment.


But even more to the point, if it WAS producing them, the total energy in the rays produced would be far less than the electrical power supplied to the accelerator.

Power != energy. It's a tough thing for laymen to get, but it's true nonetheless. If you couldn't hook up a big space heater to the CERN power lines and cause the "global warming" that's claimed, then anything escaping the plant can't either. Because all that's available as energy for doing this heating is the energy supplied to the plant.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 07:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: MamaJ

When the Sun is active with flares and CME's it produces enough energy to create cosmic rays on Earth and that is what I am defending. The Sun also protects us from higher energy cosmic rays ( galactic) is what I understand. The Sun-Earth connection drives our climate and weather. Herein lies what I believe to be the case with climate change.


The EM from the Sun is why we're not a frozen dark ball of ice spinning in the darkness. Of course energy from the Sun drives climate - it's where we get our energy FROM. Cosmic rays aren't any more/less effective for heating than, say, IR, at least where Earth's concerned.



If CERN or any other particle accelerator produce's enough energy that escapes somehow/someway, it will have an effect. I want to know and research it myself because I am nosey like that and want to know the if's, why's and how's.


Here's knowledge. CERN or any other particle accelerator have only their electrical mains supply as an energy source. That's the total energy they have. If every last particle escaped, the aggregate energy would be significantly less than what came in on the power lines.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 09:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

Exactly!

The accelerator at CERN (well, any particle accelerator) uses power over a long period of time to produce a high-energy particle. The sheer size of the accelerator is why they can get particles with so much energy.

A physicist I work with on cosmic ray detection described it this way: a cosmic ray is a single particle with the energy of a baseball pitcher's fast ball. To get that much energy in a single particle is mind-boogling! But still, would a pitcher's fastball heat up the planet? If it would, maybe we ought to ban baseball.

BTW, great posts so far. Keep it up!

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 07:58 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Thank you!

That's a good analogy.

For me, at this point, I believe there is so much we don't know. I always keep an open mind regarding my "beliefs" and or what science knows today. Tomorrow is another day to learn and we should be open to accept anything new once verified, of course. The one thing we know for a fact is change is the only thing constant. Without change we do not grow or learn, which science is all about. When reading science forums, I always get the idea from their comments, science, like religion, is stuck in the old and doesn't want to bend for new ideas.

When I read his paper I was intrigued to know whether or not particle accelerators can indeed cause some type of reaction whether it be as this guy states or another way. Either way I wanted to find out for myself.

I'm still not quite sold on the idea it causes no reaction to the Earth or atmosphere. I believe it needs to be studied further and we need to keep our eyes and ears open on the possibility.

From my point of view it seems as if 1998 was a big year!!! A big year both in politics, war, weather, etc.... We began to take a turn for the worse in every direction. I have pages full of mind blowing news we forgot about just in that year alone. I only bring this up because The European Particle Accelerator began it's construction. El Niño was a term we began hearing a lot of and in 2015 the season surpassed 1998 with 21 tropical cyclones during the 2014–16 El Niño event.

Of course like I said I'm with the camp who thinks the Sun and where we are traveling in the Solar System plays a big roll in our climate, however I remain open to the possibility something here on Earth is going on to cause the Sun to change as well being we are connected to the Sun. Either that or something in the Solar System is causing the Sun to act differently. Or... all of the above. Maybe it is ALL connected in ways we don't understand.

Anyways.... I'm rambling now.

I emailed Amagh again inviting him to come to the site and explain page 4 in more detail because it was hard to understand. Here is what he emailed back.

"I thank you Jennifer for your interest in this subject matter. There is world wide excitement about the paper, especially because it destroys the make-believe about fossil fuels. The impression I get from those arguments is that the discussants are not physicists as they don't seem to be familiar with the rudiments of physics! Paper 4 of the references discuss and clarify some of the issues they raised about accelerators, etc.I warn, however, that the paper is rather abstract and dry. Have a lovely weekend. Amagh Nduka."

Maybe curiosity will get the best of him and he will come here to ATS and discuss the paper in detail because like he said it is, "rather dry and abstract."



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 08:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: MamaJ
a reply to: TheRedneck

Thank you!

That's a good analogy.

For me, at this point, I believe there is so much we don't know. I always keep an open mind regarding my "beliefs" and or what science knows today. Tomorrow is another day to learn and we should be open to accept anything new once verified...


That's where the problems come in...



When I read his paper I was intrigued to know whether or not particle accelerators can indeed cause some type of reaction whether it be as this guy states or another way. Either way I wanted to find out for myself.


And the thing you should be drawn back to, inevitably, is that there is no more energy that any accelerator can impart than what it gets from its power supply.



I'm still not quite sold on the idea it causes no reaction to the Earth or atmosphere. I believe it needs to be studied further and we need to keep our eyes and ears open on the possibility.


But what you can be sold on is that there is no energy that any accelerator can impart that's not supplied to it.




I emailed Amagh again inviting him to come to the site and explain page 4 in more detail because it was hard to understand. Here is what he emailed back.


I'd really like for him to show up here. Really. Truly. In which case I will ask him, pointedly, how he's afraid of any energy that's not supplied to a particle accelerator by its mains. And he will softly and silently vanish away. He will not come. Because he will look at the comments, and he will not have the cojones to engage.
edit on 28-10-2016 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 08:13 AM
link   


There is world wide excitement about the paper, especially because it destroys the make-believe about fossil fuels. The impression I get from those arguments is that the discussants are not physicists as they don't seem to be familiar with the rudiments of physics!


Bring it. I dare you.



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 08:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

Oh hell yeah! Id love to see this happen. The guy would get fragged debating ya bedlam. I guess theres a down side to when you cant really discuss what you do for a living cause its classified. Other than. I um .. work as an engineer/physicist ....where?... oh...nowhere important.

I second the motion. bring it! We dare ya! I could use the entertainment!
edit on 28-10-2016 by BASSPLYR because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 08:27 AM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

This guy had one paper, on Roche limits, back 30 years ago. After that, nothing but crap in bull# journals.

He will never have the balls to show. And if he does, the more I'll love it. Show your Nigerian bull# shoveling ass up. I'm waiting.

eta: even the one legit paper he had was derivative. He hasn't had another that wasn't horsecrap. No one will accept his crap for publication. Bring it. Please. Puh-lease. Show up here. Let's get it on.
edit on 28-10-2016 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 08:36 AM
link   
a reply to: MamaJ

I would love to talk with him on this. I am admittedly not a physicist; I am an electrical engineer who works with cosmic ray research. But I think I can carry on an intelligent discussion.

Bring it.

TheRedneck




top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join