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.

 

Sun Is Getting Hotter Because of a Space Dust Cloud, But 2012 Meaningless!

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by CantSay
 



Perhaps it's absorbing much more than expected in ways not expected affecting internal composition. I say it is.

There simply isn't as much matter in space as there is matter being expelled from the Sun.


5 large quakes today in North America. 1 massive quakes yesterday in Indonesia. Sun is hotter, earthquakes have increased over the last few years in frequency and magnitude considerably. Earth was bombarded by something in late March that disturbed the magnetosphere on the dark side of the planet facing away from the Sun. Many objects being recorded around the sun and asteroids flying into the Sun. Sounds to me like there is a lot of energy being absorbed by the Sun and affecting Earth too. Sounds to me like the space dust cloud is only one manifestation of the energy forms the Solar System is passing through and absorbing and an indication that there is more energy in the space than meets the eye.




posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by CantSay
 



5 large quakes today in North America. 1 massive quakes yesterday in Indonesia. Sun is hotter, earthquakes have increased over the last few years in frequency and magnitude considerably. Earth was bombarded by something in late March that disturbed the magnetosphere on the dark side of the planet facing away from the Sun. Many objects being recorded around the sun and asteroids flying into the Sun. Sounds to me like there is a lot of energy being absorbed by the Sun and affecting Earth too. Sounds to me like the space dust cloud is only one manifestation of the energy forms the Solar System is passing through and absorbing and an indication that there is more energy in the space than meets the eye.

1. The Sun is not hotter
2. Quakes are not increasing
3. Magnetosphere is always being tweaked by the Sun
4. The amount of matter contained in the entire asteroid belt is small compared to the mass of our Moon.
5. Quakes are not affected by the Sun

There simply is a net outflow of matter from the Sun.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by oghamxx
I saw nothing in the article which said the dust was heating our planet much less the sun. So where did you get your degree in astrophysics?


Probably the history channel.

2nd line is 2nd line



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by CantSay
 



5 large quakes today in North America. 1 massive quakes yesterday in Indonesia. Sun is hotter, earthquakes have increased over the last few years in frequency and magnitude considerably. Earth was bombarded by something in late March that disturbed the magnetosphere on the dark side of the planet facing away from the Sun. Many objects being recorded around the sun and asteroids flying into the Sun. Sounds to me like there is a lot of energy being absorbed by the Sun and affecting Earth too. Sounds to me like the space dust cloud is only one manifestation of the energy forms the Solar System is passing through and absorbing and an indication that there is more energy in the space than meets the eye.

1. The Sun is not hotter
2. Quakes are not increasing
3. Magnetosphere is always being tweaked by the Sun
4. The amount of matter contained in the entire asteroid belt is small compared to the mass of our Moon.
5. Quakes are not affected by the Sun

There simply is a net outflow of matter from the Sun.


You said it was, now you say it isn't.

The asteroids I referred to are coming from outer space and not the asteroid belt.

The magnetosphere was "tweaked" by on the dark side of the planet away from the Sun describing something from outer space hit the magnetosphere - not from the side of the Sun.

There is supporting evidence that quakes are affected by the Sun:
georgewashington2.blogspot.ca...

WOW! I thought you knew what you were talking about. Now I don't believe you do.

Apparently my degree is higher than your degree...which is most likely true


edit on 12-4-2012 by CantSay because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-4-2012 by CantSay because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by CantSay
 



You said it was, now you say it isn't.

The asteroids I referred to are coming from outer space and not the asteroid belt.

The magnetosphere was "tweaked" by on the dark side of the planet away from the Sun describing something from outer space hit the magnetosphere - not from the side of the Sun.

There is supporting evidence that quakes are affected by the Sun:
georgewashington2.blogspot.ca...

WOW! I thought you knew what you were talking about. Now I don't believe you do.

Apparently my degree is higher than your apparently...which is most likely true

Not sure why you say I have changed position on something. Are you confused about the Sun heating up over the next billion years?

Asteroids are part of the solar system.

The magnetosphere was not "hit" by something from outside of the solar system. It was altered by material streaming from the Sun. The material's path is altered by the magnetic magnetosphere.

There have been proposals that events outside of the Earth affect quakes. None of them have panned out except for the correlation between the Moon and a few uncommon low intensity quakes.

In one case in the link you provided there is a mention of seeing a connection between quakes and events in the upper atmosphere. The quake causes this, not the other way around.

Even though there is no correlation to quakes and celestial bodies outside of the Moon people continue to look. That is the way the Moon connection was discovered. What eluded detection at first was that only low intensity quakes were correlated, not big ones.

So before you go and make a rash statement about what people know go back and figure out where you goofed. Here is a hint. Notice that the references in the blog are to mainly older papers that are singletons with no follow up.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by CantSay
 



You said it was, now you say it isn't.

The asteroids I referred to are coming from outer space and not the asteroid belt.

The magnetosphere was "tweaked" by on the dark side of the planet away from the Sun describing something from outer space hit the magnetosphere - not from the side of the Sun.

There is supporting evidence that quakes are affected by the Sun:
georgewashington2.blogspot.ca...

WOW! I thought you knew what you were talking about. Now I don't believe you do.

Apparently my degree is higher than your apparently...which is most likely true

Not sure why you say I have changed position on something. Are you confused about the Sun heating up over the next billion years?

Asteroids are part of the solar system.

The magnetosphere was not "hit" by something from outside of the solar system. It was altered by material streaming from the Sun. The material's path is altered by the magnetic magnetosphere.

There have been proposals that events outside of the Earth affect quakes. None of them have panned out except for the correlation between the Moon and a few uncommon low intensity quakes.

In one case in the link you provided there is a mention of seeing a connection between quakes and events in the upper atmosphere. The quake causes this, not the other way around.

Even though there is no correlation to quakes and celestial bodies outside of the Moon people continue to look. That is the way the Moon connection was discovered. What eluded detection at first was that only low intensity quakes were correlated, not big ones.

So before you go and make a rash statement about what people know go back and figure out where you goofed. Here is a hint. Notice that the references in the blog are to mainly older papers that are singletons with no follow up.


You don't know me too my friend. The evidence does exist. This was only one link.

With regards to the Sun getting hotter, you said "1. The Sun is not hotter " but you also said "Sun heating up over the next billion years". Contradiction. I can assume (appeasing) you believe that the process is slow therefore not significant enough to state that the Sun is not getting hotter, but it's still contradictory. I understand that, but I also now understand that you don't know everything and there is some evidence support Sun activity link to quakes. I had assumed you were an expert of equal education to myself.
edit on 12-4-2012 by CantSay because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by CantSay
 



You don't know me too my friend. The evidence does exist. This was only one link.

With regards to the Sun getting hotter, you said "1. The Sun is not hotter " but you also said "Sun heating up over the next billion years". Contradiction. I can assume (appeasing) you believe that the process is slow therefore not significant enough to state that the Sun is not getting hotter, but it's still contradictory. I understand that, but I also now understand that you don't know everything and there is some evidence support Sun activity link to quakes. I had assumed you were an expert of equal education to myself.


What you need to learn is that a published idea is something thrown out there for discussion. It does not make it correct. These suggestions did not pan out. Therefore, the suggestions turned out to be wrong. If there had been something there would not have been a dead end for the first article which is 50 years old. It failed 50 years ago. These ideas were tried and they failed.

The Sun is not hotter today than it was last year or the year before. The Sun is 4.5 billion years old. When it is 5.5 billion years old it is expected to be 10% hotter. In a million years it will be 0.01% hotter. In a thousand years it will be 0.00001% hotter. In a decade it will be 0.0000001% hotter. That's too small an amount to be measured. The billion year estimate is based on nuclear estimates on the changing composition of the Sun, not on direct measurements. This is not a contradiction over the short term since the difference is not measurable. No one can measure the change in temperature, i.e. the temperature difference is 0.

Sorry I don't see any evidence for your education. That does not matter, does it?



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by CantSay
 



You don't know me too my friend. The evidence does exist. This was only one link.

With regards to the Sun getting hotter, you said "1. The Sun is not hotter " but you also said "Sun heating up over the next billion years". Contradiction. I can assume (appeasing) you believe that the process is slow therefore not significant enough to state that the Sun is not getting hotter, but it's still contradictory. I understand that, but I also now understand that you don't know everything and there is some evidence support Sun activity link to quakes. I had assumed you were an expert of equal education to myself.


What you need to learn is that a published idea is something thrown out there for discussion. It does not make it correct. These suggestions did not pan out. Therefore, the suggestions turned out to be wrong. If there had been something there would not have been a dead end for the first article which is 50 years old. It failed 50 years ago. These ideas were tried and they failed.

The Sun is not hotter today than it was last year or the year before. The Sun is 4.5 billion years old. When it is 5.5 billion years old it is expected to be 10% hotter. In a million years it will be 0.01% hotter. In a thousand years it will be 0.00001% hotter. In a decade it will be 0.0000001% hotter. That's too small an amount to be measured. The billion year estimate is based on nuclear estimates on the changing composition of the Sun, not on direct measurements. This is not a contradiction over the short term since the difference is not measurable. No one can measure the change in temperature, i.e. the temperature difference is 0.

Sorry I don't see any evidence for your education. That does not matter, does it?


Education doesn't matter on this forum. If it did there wouldn't be anonymity. I come here to discuss openly and freely.

Believe me, I see your point, but it was still contradictory. That being said, I still believe there is something external heating the Sun and also the Earth. We can agree to disagree.
edit on 12-4-2012 by CantSay because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 06:09 AM
link   
reply to post by CantSay
 



Believe me, I see your point, but it was still contradictory. That being said, I still believe there is something external heating the Sun and also the Earth. We can agree to disagree.

Why do you believe that the something is heating up the Sun? Where is the evidence that the Sun is heating up?



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join