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.

 

A solar flare to dwarf the Earth...Oct 14th 2012

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by johngrissom
 


Anyways, how can the earth no be effected by solar flares?

Who said the Earth is not affected by solar flares? The upper atmosphere is indeed affected by them.

edit on 10/17/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 10:51 AM
link   
Damn looks like I've missed anther end of world.



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by DestroyDestroyDestroy
 


Since our current view is limited through our knowledge, in this case it is our knowledge about magnetism, the only model we can come up with is the iron nickel core theory. Not because someone has actual proof for it, but because we can't think of a better theory. Once we figure out that there are other things which could create magnetic fields, or once we poke a hole deep enough and send a probe into the core of the earth, this theory might be subject to change.

So I have a hard time dealing with people who try to lecture someone who has proposed an interesting alternative theory and smack them in the face with "facts", that are in reality nothing more than theories as well, with the difference that there is some sort of "global consensus" in the so called "scientific community" that this is the right theory and so they force it down other peoples throats. Can't have that.

And on a side note .. I have lost the last bit of respect for the "scientific community" which nowadays is nothing more but corporate R&D who are being paid for certain outcomes, not for empiric research. Universities included.



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by H1ght3chHippie
 


Since our current view is limited through our knowledge, in this case it is our knowledge about magnetism, the only model we can come up with is the iron nickel core theory.
No. The structure of the Earth is derived from the way seismic waves travel through it. Sort of like sonar. Empirical evidence.

edit on 10/17/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Just because you hear a hoof doesn't mean it's not a zebra.

No empirical evidence here, get your facts straight.

Which scientific discipline did you have a degree again you say ?

ETA: Here's a link where you can read a little bit about the DYNAMO THEORY and why it is a THEORY.
edit on 17-10-2012 by H1ght3chHippie because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by H1ght3chHippie
 

I'm quite aware of the dynamo theory thank you.

But it is based on the structure of the Earth which is derived directly from seismic data. Seismic data is measurable, it is empirical. You are claiming the opposite; that the structure of the Earth is derived from the dynamo theory.

BTW, you seem to be lacking in your understanding of what a scientific theory actually is. It is not something which is just made up. It is something which is supported by evidence. In this case there is plenty of evidence that the dynamo theory is correct.


edit on 10/17/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Even though my field of expertise is not in physics but in chemistry, I guess I have a vague understanding what a scientific theory relates to.

Since you seem to have slight difficulties differentiating facts from theories, I will explain it to you with a practical example:

FACT: Iron has a density of 7.86 g/cm3 @ 293 K

THEORY: There is a core of molten iron inside of the earth, generating a magnetic field.

Just because something resembles the density and seismic behaviour of molten iron, does not mean it indeed IS molten iron. How you can fail to understand this simple concept is beyond me. I suggest you go ahead and read that link I did provide, especially the later parts of the article ( The parts where they describe the magnetic fields of mercury which gives them quite a headache because according to their THEORY there shouldn't be one ) It's pretty interesting.

So again: A THEORY can be subject to change as soon as new empirical evidence is collected, while an established FACT can not.

You should start looking into the electric universe theory as well, it might change your perspective and open your mind for new ideas.

P.S. You have not answered which discipline you hold a degree in btw, I'm really curious. C'mon it's at least some sort of BOS i'nnit ?



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by H1ght3chHippie
 


So again: A THEORY can be subject to change as soon as new empirical evidence is collected, while an established FACT can not.
Absolutely. Where is the empirical evidence which precludes the Earth having a liquid outer core?


You should start looking into the electric universe theory as well, it might change your perspective and open your mind for new ideas.
I've looked at it and found it lacking.



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by PsychoReaper4
 


probably nothing like every single other time



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 01:57 PM
link   
ARE WE DEAD YET?



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 02:09 PM
link   
These threads are always funny in the light of the fact that 60 years ago, when we thought we were on the cutting edge of science (we had, after all, split the atom and killed millions with it), the scientific community (on the whole) emphatically believed two things: black holes were sci-fi nonsense, and there must be a "Planet X" lumbering unseen in our solar system, because Mercury's orbits were so perturbed.



Edit to add:

Ironically, Einstein himself did not believe in the existence of black holes, even though they were predicted by his theory.

Source
edit on 17-10-2012 by 00nunya00 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlphaHawk
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


I'm confused by it though, high solar activity can cause quakes but so can low solar activity?

The two points contradict each other, wouldn't we be riddled with earthquakes all the time then? The sun is either active or it's not... Wait, the earth is already constantly shaking... Must be the sun


I can understand Phages point here, using the above reasoning, turning the kettle on could be causing earthquakes... It's too ambiguous.

There needs to be specific quakes caused by specific solar events.

Otherwise we get stuck with people claiming that a big quake, like Japan last year was due to low solar activity and in the same breath claiming some big quake was caused by high solar activity. Both could be true but there would be different mechanics to it, surely.

Need something more concrete.


You're a troll. After all its not the magnitude of the solar activity that causes the earthquakes its the interaction between solar activity and the earths magnetic field which as anyone who isn't a troll knows occurs all the time. This means, in case it is too difficult to grasp, that earthquakes occur because the sun shines.............




eriktheawful ; I'm pulling your leg.....(just in case you read this whilst p..s.ed....done it myself and stupidly replied)

Phage : you have my deepest sympathy you are up against a couple of folks who have Cognitive Dissonance tattooed through their bones like a stick of rock.



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by H1ght3chHippie
reply to post by Phage
 


Just because you hear a hoof doesn't mean it's not a zebra.

Quite true. However, given that there hundreds of thousands of species of hoofed animals and considerably more hoofed animals that are not zebras statistics would say it is highly unlikely......especially in Finland! (Sorry Finland I used you in politics this afternoon so my brain has you in the forefront)

So do you understand the link between empirical and statistical ? As opposed to "I like Zebras so that hoofed sound comes from a Zebra"........



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


On the subject of the sun , I wonder what your thoughts are on my idea that THE SUN IS THE OUTPUT OF a BLACKHOLE?

As suporting evidence, The cassini craft monitoring the sun photograghed an area next to the sun that was called a distortion of time space. Also that japan tested for nuclear particles and FOUND NONE. Could these large eruptions acually be planets being sucked in the blackhole and ground down to there basic parts providing fuel to the sun?



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by 00nunya00
These threads are always funny in the light of the fact that 60 years ago, when we thought we were on the cutting edge of science (we had, after all, split the atom and killed millions with it), the scientific community (on the whole) emphatically believed two things: black holes were sci-fi nonsense, and there must be a "Planet X" lumbering unseen in our solar system, because Mercury's orbits were so perturbed.



Edit to add:

Ironically, Einstein himself did not believe in the existence of black holes, even though they were predicted by his theory.

Source
edit on 17-10-2012 by 00nunya00 because: (no reason given)

Let's toss a coin once a year :

H H T H T H T T H H H T H T H H T H H H

Empirical, statistical conclusion : The coin is weighted.

H H T H T H T T H H H T H T H H T H H H T T H T H T H T T H T T H H T T T H T T

Empirical statistical conclusion : The coin is balanced

Conspiracists conclusion : science changes it mind to suit circumstances.

Pro Heads cult : They have lied about the coin for the last 20 years
Pro Tails cult : We have been vindicated.

People with IQ's above 130 (mine is 135) : Oh my God.



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by H1ght3chHippie
 


Don't get too hung up on Phage's opinions, he believes fluoride in your drinking water is a supreme benefit and I suspect him of being a closet member of the Flat Earth Society.



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 04:33 PM
link   
This event wasn't directed at earth. It is said not to have any effect on the earth. I was wondering though, since the ring orbit of the earth is always present, how come things can't pull, tug, or energize it even though we are not at that spot where the event is. Seems to me that if a CME hit it the ring on the other side of the sun and flexed the orbit, it could tug on the earth from both sides. I don't really know much about the magnetic field that the earth orbits in other than that it is there. Sometimes knowing little about something brings fresh ideas.



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by yorkshirelad

Originally posted by 00nunya00
These threads are always funny in the light of the fact that 60 years ago, when we thought we were on the cutting edge of science (we had, after all, split the atom and killed millions with it), the scientific community (on the whole) emphatically believed two things: black holes were sci-fi nonsense, and there must be a "Planet X" lumbering unseen in our solar system, because Mercury's orbits were so perturbed.



Edit to add:

Ironically, Einstein himself did not believe in the existence of black holes, even though they were predicted by his theory.

Source
edit on 17-10-2012 by 00nunya00 because: (no reason given)

Let's toss a coin once a year :

H H T H T H T T H H H T H T H H T H H H

Empirical, statistical conclusion : The coin is weighted.

H H T H T H T T H H H T H T H H T H H H T T H T H T H T T H T T H H T T T H T T

Empirical statistical conclusion : The coin is balanced

Conspiracists conclusion : science changes it mind to suit circumstances.

Pro Heads cult : They have lied about the coin for the last 20 years
Pro Tails cult : We have been vindicated.

People with IQ's above 130 (mine is 135) : Oh my God.


People with an IQ above 135 (mine is 136): We will never stop learning and discovering amazing new things that change our very perception of the universe. We are never 100% "correct".



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 05:42 PM
link   
13,000 years ago the Earth and Moon got very hot for a very short period of time. Both show micromelting of rocks, dated to 13,000 years ago. It killed every sentient being on Earth and the planet was reseeded with sentient life about 12,000 years ago and all humans alive today are descendants of that reseeding. We are being managed because the point is to grow the consciousness of all beings and we have a long way to go. Earth is a popular spot to place the newly sentient because high adversity creates rapid consciousness development. It is a very long process. The great yogis tell us that we start as mineral like rocks on some planet and then become plants, then animals and then sentient. We are at the very bottom of a very long climb up the consciousness ladder for sentient beings. We have extremely low comprehension of everything. Grow you aura, help others and create love and you will continue to climb the ladder.



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 08:29 PM
link   
This site kicks butt!

This is the best place to find out about anything solar,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------< br /> This one's just as good!

And this one is the best place to find out about any earthquakes,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------< br /> This one's okay

And finally, this one tells about any geographical incidents but it's not too precise.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join