reply to post by Pappie54
You express your opinion
That I find the article you posted untrustworthy upon initial glance is opinion. More like speculation really, a guess - but an educated one based on
the type of language used, the mentioning of Mayans and 2012 (when in fact, if the data actually supported the proposition, then the Mayan connection
would be pointless or a side note. The data would speak for itself, and wouldn't need "appeals to authority" or the corroboration "of magic".
Either divined through "spirits" or Astronomy.
Further, the links on the page are to other stories or sites exploring other well known pseudoscience. This indicates to me that the site author more
concerned with maintaining an illusion, than facing reality. Falsus in Uno, Falsus in omnibus. It indicates to me that the author actively seeks out
crackpot theories and promotes them as "alternatives" without full and due time given to fact checking.
However, the Earth being roughly 30 parsecs from the Galactic Central Plane and will not intersect it on 2012 is NOT opinion, and I did post a link to
a peer-review paper supporting such. A poster below suggested I google the term, and sure enough, the top five links (one of which was the paper I
linked to) supported my claim. Even at the most conservative estimate of only 5 parsec from GCP puts us too far away for a 2012 deadline. Unless you
suggest that the Earth is traveling through the Galaxy faster than the speed of light.
As for my statements concerning mass extinction, I thought those were common knowledge. It's taught in high school biology and science classes in
most industrialized nations. The suggestion that I did not fully read the article is accurate, however. If the very lynchpin the supposition relies
upon is false - then doesn't it follow that the rest of the theory will be false? This isn't like a typo or a small error within tolerances that can
be corrected and revised.
Further, there is absolutely no demonstrable evidence I could find that suggest that our Galactic Center emitted Gamma Ray Bursts along it's equator.
While the center of the galaxy certainly is more rich in Gamma Ray activity than, say, the outer spiral arms, this isn't the same as GRBs. It's
caused by positrons colliding with electrons - and each occurrence only emits a few Gamma Rays. ... and they certainly aren't focused or directed.
Now. While it has been proposed that a GRB may have initiated the Late Ordovician extinction, it's admitted by the authors of the paper that it's
only a "working hypothesis". Meaning, they don't have any evidence to positively support such a claim - but that it fits circumstantial evidence
and isn't outright falsified by what evidence we do have.
Such a mechanism certainly hasn't been seriously proposed as a cause for the cycle of extinction on a regular basis, at least, not outside of the
realm of workable hypothesis even less tenuously clinging to circumstantial evidence than the proposed O-S burst.
So really, that response wasn't in regard to what I'd read in the article you posted - but to your reaction to that article. Note that I quoted YOUR
then this is an event that unless your a chosen one for some underground complex that exist, your fried.
Again. The fossil record supports no such event ever happening. If the GRB is powerful enough to "fry" an unsheltered human - it will kill pretty
much everything. The fossil record does not support such a claim in ANY way.
Yet you also admonish me for thinking that such a GRB strike was "insta-fry" of all life rather than a stress or a shock leading to the extinction.
Your own interpretation suggests that either the author is misunderstanding the data, the data and article are faulty, or that you are speculating
impossibilities because YOUR not understanding what the article actually claims.
I'm prone to believe it's a combination of all three factors to varying degrees. In any case, i posit: If the article or data is bunk - why admonish
me for not reading it. If it's correct (it's not), then why admonish me for not reading it when YOU didn't even read - or fully understand it.
reply to post by OnTheFelt
You are obviously so "left brain" programmed that you shamefully dismiss all things and notions to the right because it does not fit into your
deeply embedded ideologies.
Programmed? Perhaps you missed the memo, but the blank slate has been scrapped. Evolutionary Psychology and the Cognitive revolution has drastically
changed our understanding of Psychology and studies of human behavior. I don't think your concept of "programming" fits with today's current
understanding of how the brain works.
Even suppose I was, though, Left brainers are traditionally known for being objective, reasonable, analytical, logical, etc. Those are traits that I
cherish, and they are the best tools for deciphering and understanding reality. As evident by the proven track record of science. Right brainers
(which I assume you're referring to yourself, or in greater proportion, in comparison to me) on the other hand are said to be more intuitive, random,
favor holistic synthesize, and subjective. This might be good for artists, storytellers, entertainers, and political pundits - but they don't have a
very good track record of discovery comparatively.
It's the difference between deductive and inductive logic. Deductive logic looks at the big picture (right brain) and assumes certain pre-set truths
and axioms to explain reality. Inductive logic looks at the components of a system (left brain) and figures out what they are, what causes them, how
they interact - and then build those small pieces of knowledge together like assembling a puzzle.
This is why science didn't really take off until Galileo adopted the scientific method outlined by the Persians and shrugged off Aristotle's
So to call me left-brained, I find a great compliment.
For a biologist, whom you claim to be
I never said I was a biologist. Never even hinted at it. I merely said that I'm more knowledgeable in biology than I am in astronomy and
astrophysics. In fact, to quote, I merely said;
Maybe I'll take a crack at debunking if someone else doesn't. Biology is more my realm anyhow.
I don't know how you arrived at the conclusion that I was a biologist from that. Is your right brain just going off it's intuition and subjectively
speculating on what I said, or do you mean to infer that unless you're an active researcher or expert on the matter - you have no business knowing
Most likely the former, I think, but the latter may betray a glimmer of truth on how you perceptual the world - even if you may not consciously
I refer you to an amazing astro-physicist named, Nassim Haramein.
The same Nassim Haramein who suggested that a comet twice the size of Jupiter passed through our solar system completely unnoticed? lol. You're going
to try to combat my critique of pseudoscience with even MORE OUTRAGEOUS pseudoscience?
... yeah... that'll work.
The video I was going to link to was removed due to TOS violations, but I found an ATS thread with the defunct video link, claim, and posters talking
about Mr. Haramein.
First off, any comet twice the size of Jupiter passing through our Solar system would completely bork the orbits of the planets. Even small
perturbations at the time he made the claim, by now would be extremely noticeable... if not had dire effects for Earth's climate. Secondly, any comet
twice the size of Jupiter would NOT BE A COMET. It'd be a PLANET. It wouldn't even have the customary cometary tail as the gravity well of such a
massive object would trap it close to the surface and turn it into ATMOSPHERE. Regardless of the IAU's new definition of what constitutes a planet -
on an object that large it wouldn't matter so long as it orbited the sun.
Further... if such an object was a part of our solarsystem, and it's orbit extremely elliptical - even beyond that of Sedena's (roughly 12,000 year
orbit), I have to ask, WHY do we still have the Oort cloud? Something that large would have cleared a significant (if not all) amount of it away. At
the VERY least we'd notice the planet's tracks where it cut through the debris.
Lastly, even supposing some silly impossible conspiracy of science to keep it under wraps - how the hell did it hide from the thousands upon thousands
of amateur astronomers who DO have some pretty impressive telescopes. An object in our solar system twice the size of Jupiter would have lit the
internet of fire with postings. But apparently, these amateur astronomers can help discover and catalog new objects in space, NEOs, PHA's, and even
be the first to spot an earth-sized impact scar on Jupiter... but fail to see an object twice as big as Jupiter?
If THAT dude is your idea of the truth, then I seriously wonder just what the hell it was that sent you off the deep end.