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.

 

"End of World" Imminent: This WARNING is very real.

page: 38
107
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


I don't know what the technical difference is between the two terms. But let's not a quarrel over terminology distract us from the basic premise. The sun's going up through the disc/plane whatever you want to call it of our galaxy. That part of the galaxy is heavily dense with electromagnetic energy/plasma. It only happens once in a very very long time. The center of our galaxy is loaded with energy, else the spiral arms would collapse in on themselves among other things.

Look I could go on and on about reasons and proof like weather and earthquakes and everything else. But to me the number one reason that I see everyday that I know something is up is the extreme brightness of the sun. It's changed. And if nothing happens this year or early next, I'll be the first one on this board offering my apologies. But I'm almost entirely certain I won't have to nor can. And again, this isn't about fear. Although admittedly I'm scared of any kind of change, but I'm working on it. And hope you guys can to. It's about trusting in nature and the creator. If I live on in eternity or on this earth or another earth, that's for the consciousness of nature to decide ultimately not me. So why worry? I can't change who I am, but I hope that through my own witness I can attest to my true spirit.




posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by ColAngus
 


lol I wish I was that smart. I hope you can differentiate a style, and I cannot speak about anything in specifics like he can. But I still play a part, as I have in the past about things I'm dead certain of. And this is one of those things.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by SonofLeod
 


The purpose of Y2K wasn't just to get us to think about negative things, but it was the precursor in getting to believe that 2012 will just be like that failed scenario. Don't be part of the disinfo you claim to avoid please.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by SonofLeod
 


I am not referring to you directly, Im sorry if it offends you in any way ( although by your respectful answer I think not) but, as you said, it happened before, just that. Anyhow im really happy when I can exchange thoughts in good terms, and no, I dont think the world got any better since 2001. (sadly)



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by shortsticks
 


Except there is no research that suggests we are entering the Galactic Plane. All the research I have found supports the claim that we last passed through it 3 millions years ago and will not be reaching its outer edges again for another 30-40 millions years. Then there's the fact that it would take thousands, if not millions, of years to actually cross the Galactic Plane. Then throw in the fact that for the most part the Galactic Plane is ambiguously defined it becomes impossible to actually point to a specific date as the one when we cross the Galactic Plane.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by shortsticks
reply to post by ColAngus
 


lol I wish I was that smart. I hope you can differentiate a style, and I cannot speak about anything in specifics like he can.


HE GAVE NO SPECIFICS!

Anyone can say "Hey, the sun's gonna go loopy this year." He gave nothing beyond that, and when called on it, he turned into an ass.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


Here's two things you need to realize. First:

Two consequences of collisions and tidal encounters with such clouds that may have large ultimate biological impact have been suggested. First, if actual penetration of the cloud occurs, the cloud particle density of n>10^2 cm^-3 would probably shut off the solar wind at Earth distance, as Begelman and Rees have shown. Such a cloud could then directly pollute the Earth's upper atmosphere with hydrogen gas, leading to a variety of possible climatic effects. A larger cloud density of n>10^3cm^-3 would also raise the Sun's luminosity significantly through gravitational accretion and so would directly affect insolation on the Earth. To traverse a cloud of radius 5 pc at a relative speed of 20kms^-1 requires 0.5 Myr.

pubs.giss.nasa.gov...

Second, look up at the sun.

One more bonus: the recent solar winds reversal as evidenced by our magnetosphere just a few short weeks ago.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by ColAngus
 


He's been there, done that. given specifics, that is. They were first stolen and plagiarized then deleted. And like others said, he's only an ass to those who deserve it. I talked to him many times respectfully asking him questions about things I didn't understand. Even what I disagreed one. He never was an ass to me, because I wasn't an ass to him. This is pretty easy to understand, why can't you?



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by shortsticks
 


Except there is no research that suggests we are entering the Galactic Plane. All the research I have found supports the claim that we last passed through it 3 millions years ago and will not be reaching its outer edges again for another 30-40 millions years. Then there's the fact that it would take thousands, if not millions, of years to actually cross the Galactic Plane. Then throw in the fact that for the most part the Galactic Plane is ambiguously defined it becomes impossible to actually point to a specific date as the one when we cross the Galactic Plane.


Man you need more stars! ...but unfortunately you won't get them. Most believe the galactic plane transition hoax without actually looking for the evidence.

So far, no one has provided any evidence or study that supports the idea of a galactic plane transition. There is no rigid symmetry to the Milky Way galaxy. There is a general shape of course but there is no clearly definable plane perpendicular to the axis of the center. Claims that our solar system will transition the galactic plane in 2012 are simply untrue! At the time when our solar system actually does transition the galactic plane (millions of years from now) it will take several decades.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Blarneystoner
 


did you even look at the paper in my link? you couldn't have possibly digested it all in this short amount of time.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by shortsticks
reply to post by ColAngus
 


He's been there, done that. given specifics, that is. They were first stolen and plagiarized then deleted.


Who cares about any of that if the end of the world is IMMINENT?!?!?!?

If the world's ending within the next 8 months, wouldn't you keep posting your specifics ad nauseum if you were confident that you were on to something? His rationale doesn't make sense and your staunch defending of him out of the blue is sending off red flags up the wazoo.

Get specific or accept that people are going to be skeptical. Simple as that.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by shortsticks
reply to post by ColAngus
 


He's been there, done that. given specifics, that is. They were first stolen and plagiarized then deleted. And like others said, he's only an ass to those who deserve it. I talked to him many times respectfully asking him questions about things I didn't understand. Even what I disagreed one. He never was an ass to me, because I wasn't an ass to him. This is pretty easy to understand, why can't you?


The problem is that by falling back to that (can't give you specifics or more info because it's been stolen from me in the past), is that it brings the discussion back to square one:

OP makes a post with very extraordinary claims, with no specifics, proof, links to data and / or research.
Members ask for this information.
OP says that they can't because no one would understand it (rather arrogant I'm afraid).
Members again ask for this information.
OP says won't because this information was stolen from them. Members will just have to trust them.

With out data to analyze or more detailed information to back up claims, all we have left is a good story posted by the OP, and that's all we have: a story.

I could sit here and claim to have an IQ tested repeatedly at 186. I could then claim that people are after me. I can also claim that I have information that is very, very important to everyone in the world, but only I understand it.
The hamsters are going to take over the world and kill all humans! They'll do this on 4 July, 2012! The west coast of the USA would be the worst place for this! The best place to be for this would be Australia. My proof for what I'm talking about, is to show you this video of how Hamsters are fighting!:



So you see, there'd be no difference between me and the OP at this point. I'm making extraordinary claims, telling everyone that I'm very smart, but I'm going to refused to post my data to back up my claims and call everyone on this forum ignorant or stupid.......



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ColAngus
 


that's a good point, could be that just like a person getting older, you don't have as many new ideas to share. he might have already shared them all in specifics, got run over by a freight train and decided you know what? people are going to believe what they want and reject what they reject. and if the world as we know it is going to end soon, then there's not much point in trying too hard to get that longed-after but so elusive recognition one deserves. I think he has imo, tho, reason being that so many are interested in what he has to say, otherwise he wouldn't be even tolerated for the short time he was.

and he has still given lots of specifics on nasa's moon landing or his other theory that he referenced that can still be found on the net. a simple fact-check for those serious about the matter is available to you or anyone.

point in case, I've given one simple specific, about the sun's luminosity and yet you're choosing to ignore it.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


you could look at it that way, sure, and post any silly YT video to back your claims. Or you can see it for what it really is. One gets tired of having work stolen and work not acknowledged. Now your argument isn't anything new, and I suppose neither is mine. We both stated our cases, so there's no need to keep saying the same thing over and over. The last person who posts their shtick doesn't make them right by being the last one in the post. So if you please, bring something new so I can respond to it, if I can. This bit I think is more like beating a dead horse. Respond to something more substantive, like the paper I referenced which includes the sun's increased luminosity for example. While it may not seem like on topic to the casual observer, the wise reader knows that it all plays together to establishing the credibility of even the seemingly incredible (the OP, i.e.).



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by shortsticks
reply to post by ColAngus
 


that's a good point, could be that just like a person getting older, you don't have as many new ideas to share. he might have already shared them all in specifics, got run over by a freight train and decided you know what? people are going to believe what they want and reject what they reject. and if the world as we know it is going to end soon, then there's not much point in trying too hard to get that longed-after but so elusive recognition one deserves.


Have you even read all his posts in this thread?!!?!

All he did was try too hard.

This is pointless. See you in January when nothing's happened.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by shortsticks
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


Here's two things you need to realize. First:

Two consequences of collisions and tidal encounters with such clouds that may have large ultimate biological impact have been suggested. First, if actual penetration of the cloud occurs, the cloud particle density of n>10^2 cm^-3 would probably shut off the solar wind at Earth distance, as Begelman and Rees have shown. Such a cloud could then directly pollute the Earth's upper atmosphere with hydrogen gas, leading to a variety of possible climatic effects. A larger cloud density of n>10^3cm^-3 would also raise the Sun's luminosity significantly through gravitational accretion and so would directly affect insolation on the Earth. To traverse a cloud of radius 5 pc at a relative speed of 20kms^-1 requires 0.5 Myr.

pubs.giss.nasa.gov...

Second, look up at the sun.

One more bonus: the recent solar winds reversal as evidenced by our magnetosphere just a few short weeks ago.


Thank you brother. Finally we are getting around to the brass tacks. Pray tell, do these solar wind reversals happen very often?
edit on 4-4-2012 by ehecatl because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by shortsticks
reply to post by Blarneystoner
 


did you even look at the paper in my link? you couldn't have possibly digested it all in this short amount of time.


Actually that paper confirms what I have been saying here. The time needed for the Solar System to oscillate vertically about the plane of the Galaxy is ~33Myr +/- 3Myr.

But if you look at the table provided for Dates (Myr BP) of terrestrial and galactic events, the variance is as much as 14 Million years in some cases.

The last mass extinction occured in the Middle Miocene ~14Myrs ago which again confirms what I have been saying. The next galactic transition won't occur for millions of years.


edit on 4-4-2012 by Blarneystoner because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-4-2012 by Blarneystoner because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by shortsticks
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


you could look at it that way, sure, and post any silly YT video to back your claims. Or you can see it for what it really is. One gets tired of having work stolen and work not acknowledged. Now your argument isn't anything new, and I suppose neither is mine. We both stated our cases, so there's no need to keep saying the same thing over and over. The last person who posts their shtick doesn't make them right by being the last one in the post. So if you please, bring something new so I can respond to it, if I can. This bit I think is more like beating a dead horse. Respond to something more substantive, like the paper I referenced which includes the sun's increased luminosity for example. While it may not seem like on topic to the casual observer, the wise reader knows that it all plays together to establishing the credibility of even the seemingly incredible (the OP, i.e.).


The only problem with the paper you linked to, is that it was published 28 years ago. It would be better to have some more recent work done and show that the sun's luminosity is increasing faster and more than it should be.

Something more up to date would be useful.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


What makes you say that? The age of the data has nothing to do with it's validity.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by ColAngus
 


Yep, and I can't get enough. Wish I could've seen all the posts before they were censored, but it it what it is. And I've been following the guy long enough to know what he probably said anyway lol Yeah I think Im his number one fan, but in a good way, and not one that catalogs all the things he has ever said to bring discredit on him in the future, or the present, as it were. wink wink. And nothing is pointless btw. If you think i'm the dead horse trying to be beaten that's one thing, but eternity for any of us is just around the corner, regardless if 2012 is it. although the way I read you, your feign at dumbness is just that. a guise. and so my words aren't meant for you per se.



new topics

top topics



 
107
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join