Brightest galactic flash ever detected hits Earth, one day earlier Indonesia had EQ of M 9.3

Originally posted by Insearchofthetruth1987

Originally posted by lover088

Originally posted by Phage
The earthquake occurred before the radiation reached Earth?
Aren't you mixing things up a bit?

Are you think you know all or they ??

Maybe is time to learn something new ..

You can learn from this event very much new staff Phage, is not so simple like scientists write ..

To many particles is in concerned and all do not have same fixed speed etc ..

edit on 21-3-2012 by lover088 because: (no reason given)

epic thread fail!!
the earthquakes happened the day before the radiation hit earth (traveling at speed of light)
either this needs B/S calling on it or...
you have found something that travels faster than light!!!

but seriously the radiation heating earths mantle thus inducing earthquakes CAN happen
we just need to be closer to the sun for it to work (wouldnt that heat earths mantle anyways???)

How fast is gravity? Do Black holes PROVE faster than light forces exist?

Did we get hit by the "gravity wave" before the photons got here. IMHO, it adds evidence to my assertion which has yet to be diss-proven (and gets the ridicule of truth per Schopenhaur's stages of revelation...), ...and the earth quakes mabe some violent opposition

reply to post by reitze


Here is a link to an experiment to detect gravity waves

www.ligo.caltech.edu...

They haven't found any yet

reply to post by wmd_2008


Funny, alabama got hit by what they called a gravity wave a few years back. Did millions of dollars worth of damage upon our small little town here. All the papers called it a gravity wave. You can look in my threads, I have it there somewhere.

Edit to add link to the thread I made about it....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by reitze

 

Here is a link to an experiment to detect gravity waves

www.ligo.caltech.edu...

They haven't found any yet

Thanks! That IS interesting. The 1st thing I wonder about it seeing the picture of the site is what range of frequencies are they checking? Something like a step function coming from a far off event may only have very high frequency content by the time it gets here. Or the opposite, very low content. --- either way it would affect the needed aperture (object masses separated by an accurately measured distance).

Also, if its faster than light that would affect the measuring equipment too! Like even a laser may not measure the movement fast enough to determine something moved.

In other words it's hard to imagine how to detect somethign FTL other than observing something like this where something in space happens and we get big earthquakes here simultaneously while noticing the event the appropriate time later...

Sorta like watching something clash then hearing it delayed by distance. ..
But this seems more like feeling something then seeing it.

reply to post by reitze


I would think they would have a better idea of what to look for than you, do dont take that the wrong way they do it for a living do you!

Originally posted by LeoVirgo
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

Funny, alabama got hit by what they called a gravity wave a few years back. Did millions of dollars worth of damage upon our small little town here. All the papers called it a gravity wave. You can look in my threads, I have it there somewhere.

Edit to add link to the thread I made about it....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 22-3-2012 by LeoVirgo because: (no reason given)

Found it wrong type it's a weather term as well.

Now let's look at what a gravity wave is in the atmosphere. To start a gravity wave, a TRIGGER mechanism must cause the air to be displaced in the vertical. Examples of trigger mechanisms that produce gravity waves are mountains and thunderstorm updrafts

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by reitze

 

I would think they would have a better idea of what to look for than you, do dont take that the wrong way they do it for a living do you!

I'm just a scientific minded person who dares to dream and ask questions. The idea that they're not saying anything conclusive doesn't surprise me (political? lack of dreamers? it happens) ... AND FURTHERMORE, I'm not alone having such critical wondering... this just googled up while referencing "Dr. Alexey Demetriev, an eminent Russian astrophysicist".

Evidence Builds: Deadly Gravity Wave Approaching Earth Or here's the youtuber reading it 4 ya:

Edit+
This is interesting too - looks like the LIGO detection system:

(my same assertions apply, the frequency sensitivity and political reluctance to admidt FTL my prevent disclosures beyond speculations like mine)

reply to post by wmd_2008


So how far off are the two things, are they really that different? Strange to call them both the same thing. Does the actual real gravity wave not have a trigger?

reply to post by lover088


After I read about magnetars, I realized what a danger they pose against our planet. Because a magnetar can cause what is known as a star quake.

This is from Wikipedia entry Starquake

The largest recorded starquake occurred on the ultracompact stellar corpse (magnetar) SGR 1806-20. It released gamma rays equivalent to 1036 kW in intensity. This starquake occurred 50,000 light years away. Had the event occurred within a distance of ten light years from Earth, the event could have potentially triggered a mass extinction on Earth.[1]

The problem is, not enough is known about magnetars, and there could be closer ones than the ones we already know about. So if there was any theory about something that could cause mass extinction on earth, magnetars would be the best bet after meteorites I guess.

Originally posted by LeoVirgo
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

So how far off are the two things, are they really that different? Strange to call them both the same thing. Does the actual real gravity wave not have a trigger?

Gravity waves from space could be caused by

In physics, gravitational waves are ripples in the curvature of spacetime which propagate as a wave, travelling outward from the source,sources of detectable gravitational waves could possibly include binary star systems composed of white dwarfs, neutron stars, or black holes.

Hope that helps.

In this video Paul Groot explains the measurement equipment

Ground based (LIGO, Virgo, GEO...) = very high frequency
Pulsar Timeing Arrays = Very Low frequency

So both miss it.

Since you clearly think you have proof, please present that proof to let us all in on your theory.

Have you published any papers or can you point out any that exist?

I've still yet to see how this could have caused it if the earthquake was a day PRIOR to it hitting earth..the day OF would seem to be the logical understanding.

Originally posted by MamaJ

Originally posted by hp1229
reply to post by lover088

 

That makes sense to me although I want to add that any excitement of massive radiation and or energy would also reach the Earth's core? Thats my understanding anyway.

I am not sure about the radiation but certainly Energy can definitely be transferred. Below are simple links explaining the transfer of energy upto certain extent.

ENERGY_TRANSFER

CONDUCTION_CONVECTION_RADIATION

Originally posted by reitze

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by reitze

 

www.ligo.caltech.edu...

Sorta like watching something clash then hearing it delayed by distance. ..
But this seems more like feeling something then seeing it.

I visualized it and thought about the way by thinking about a massive explosion at an altitude where you see the initial sound/shockwave travelling much faster followed by the slightly delayed high speed winds.

I am not sure if I missed any links but I was reading about 'neutrinos' and supposedly they travel faster than light.

In addition there are some speculative models in which Neutrinos have a tachyonic nature and travel faster than light (see Tachyon#Neutrinos). Also some Lorentz violating variants of quantum gravity might allow faster-than-light neutrinos. A comprehensive framework for Lorentz violations is the Standard-Model Extension (SME).

NEUTRINO
Under the 'supernovae' section...read the below.

Furthermore, the neutrino burst is expected to reach Earth before any electromagnetic waves, including visible light, gamma rays or radio waves. The exact time delay depends on the velocity of the shock wave and on the thickness of the outer layer of the star. For a Type II supernova, astronomers expect the neutrino flood to be released seconds after the stellar core collapse, while the first electromagnetic signal may emerge hours later. The SNEWS project uses a network of neutrino detectors to monitor the sky for candidate supernova events; the neutrino signal will provide a useful advance warning of a star exploding in the Milky Way.

SUPERNOVA
Below is under the 'Effect on Earth' section..

A near-Earth supernova is a supernova close enough to the Earth to have noticeable effects on its biosphere. Depending upon the type and energy of the supernova, it could be as far as 3000 light-years away. Gamma rays from a supernova would induce a chemical reaction in the upper atmosphere converting molecular nitrogen into nitrogen oxides, depleting the ozone layer enough to expose the surface to harmful solar and cosmic radiation. This has been proposed as the cause of the Ordovician–Silurian extinction, which resulted in the death of nearly 60% of the oceanic life on Earth.[

Once again, these are theories and/or proven facts to detect neutrinos. Who knows what else remains undiscovered with respect to 'supernovae'.

reply to post by hp1229

Tachyons are, at this point, purely theoretical and not thought to exist. Strange beasts, they would only travel faster than light.

The idea that the neutrinos produced by a supernova would arrive before the electromagnetic radiation makes sense. But the burst from SGR 1806-20 was not produced by a supernova.

It is thought that a neutrino burst from a magentar such as SGR 1806-20, if it occured, would have arrived about half a year after the gamma rays. No neutrino burst was detected.

On 27 December 2004, a giant γ flare from the Soft Gamma-Ray Repeater 1806-20 saturated many satellite gamma-ray detectors, being the brightest transient event ever observed in the Galaxy. AMANDA-II was used to search for down-going muons indicative of high-energy gammas and/or neutrinos from this object. The data revealed no significant signal, so upper limits (at 90% C.L.) on the normalization constant were set: 0.05(0.5)  TeV-1 m-2 s-1 for γ=-1.47 (-2) in the gamma flux and 0.4(6.1)  TeV-1 m-2 s-1 for γ=-1.47 (-2) in the high-energy neutrino flux.

prl.aps.org...


But even if a neutrino burst were produced by the process which produced the electromagnetic burst, neutrinos don't do much of anything. They pass through matter, having practically no effect.

Originally posted by Phage

reply to post by hp1229

 

Tachyons are, at this point, purely theoretical and not thought to exist. Strange beasts, they would only travel faster than light.

It is thought that a neutrino burst from a magentar such as SGR 1806-20, if it occured, would have arrived about half a year after the gamma rays. No neutrino burst was detected.

On 27 December 2004, a giant γ flare from the Soft Gamma-Ray Repeater 1806-20 saturated many satellite gamma-ray detectors, being the brightest transient event ever observed in the Galaxy. AMANDA-II was used to search for down-going muons indicative of high-energy gammas and/or neutrinos from this object. The data revealed no significant signal, so upper limits (at 90% C.L.) on the normalization constant were set: 0.05(0.5)  TeV-1 m-2 s-1 for γ=-1.47 (-2) in the gamma flux and 0.4(6.1)  TeV-1 m-2 s-1 for γ=-1.47 (-2) in the high-energy neutrino flux.

prl.aps.org...

But even if a neutrino burst were produced by the process which produced the electromagnetic burst, neutrinos don't do much of anything. They pass through matter, having practically no effect.

edit on 3/27/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

PHYSICS_SHOCKER

It is still a big question but research and articles suggest otherwise. So far it was also suggested that neutrinos have zero mass but now the tune has changed.

European physicists have measured tiny particles called neutrinos moving just faster than the speed of light--only a smidgen faster, but enough to raise a serious possibility that Einstein's physics need a major overhaul.....

Neutrino behavior
It's another surprise from neutrinos, particles that lack any electrical charge and that interact only rarely with anything else. For decades, physicists thought neutrinos had no mass, but in the 1990s, research showed they actually are very light......

But over the last three years, the OPERA experiment has gathered high-precision data on exactly how long it took for the neutrinos to make a journey that should last about 2.4 thousandths of a second. The neutrinos, though, arrived about 61 billionths of a second sooner than would light traveling in a vacuum, where its speed is at a maximum. That's about 2 thousandths of a percent faster than the speed of light--not much, but more than enough to throw a major wrench into the workings of physics if the result is validated......

Combining it all, the researchers concluded they had enough precision in their measurements. The ultimate finding was that the neutrinos arrived 60.7 nanoseconds faster than light in a vacuum would have, with a statistical uncertainty of only plus or minus 6.9 nanoseconds and measurement uncertainty of plus or minus 7.4 nanoseconds.

Yet another theory about possibly neutrinos being the culprit for EQs. Again just a theory at this time until studied further.

NEUTRINO_A S_A_POSSIBLE_CULPRIT_FOR_EQ

reply to post by hp1229

It is still a big question but research and articles suggest otherwise. So far it was also suggested that neutrinos have zero mass but now the tune has changed.

You have quoted an obsolete article.

James Gillies, a spokesman for CERN (the European Organization for Nuclear Research) said late on Wednesday that the result was now in doubt.

“A possible explanation has been found. But we won’t know until we have tested it out with a new beam to Gran Sasso,” Gillies told Reuters in Geneva.

news.nationalpost.com... es/


There is nothing in your second source about neutrinos causing earthquakes.

reply to post by Phage


Yep. It is older (Sep 2011) compared to Feb 2012. However they're all nothing more than speculations and/or theories for now. Guess will have to wait and see what they publish couple months from now.

The 2nd link was just a possible theory about EQ's caused by Neutrinos. Just as the others, it is pending more testing. I just threw it out there as the thought did cross the physics community at one point