It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Something Incredible Was Said To Me Regarding Flipped Polarities, It was out of the blue!!!!!!

page: 24
<< 21  22  23   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 09:04 PM
reply to post by Char-Lee

Would love to hear your actual thoughts what or how do you feel about what this 65 year old said.
You haven't been paying attention. My thoughts are all over ATS, including this thread.

I know, you must maintain the voice of reason and remain everyone's rock or anchor in the mass of fear and hysteria...understood.
Something wrong with using reason? But I don't see a mass of fear or hysteria, just a concentration of it on ATS.

posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 04:38 PM
reply to post by sirjunlegun

would explain as to why there has been an increased activity in the atmosphere. people have been seeing interesting things in Alaska beams of light shooting into the sky parting the clouds and such. that is a lot of energy being expelled. Very interesting post think there is a connection to HARRP?
related findings in other posts here on ATS

posted on Dec, 12 2012 @ 12:50 AM

Originally posted by Char-Lee
reply to post by Phage

I agree they may not be accurate on somethings, I don't think the earth will have all life wiped out for instance but they are not necessarily "full of crap".

A new study indicates that there is a possible connection between the Earth's inner core and a magnetic reversal. The magnetic field reverses direction every few thousand years. [sounds kind of regular to me]

If it happened now, we would be exposed to solar winds capable of knocking out global communications and power grids. Peter Olson and Renaud Deguen of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, used numerical modelling to establish that the axis of Earth's magnetic field lies in the growing hemisphere.

While one side of Earth's solid inner core grows slightly, the other half melts, the scientists concluded in their research paper. Now the researchers speculate that there are signs that the next magnetic pole reversal may be underway. The rapid movements of the field's axis to the east in the last few hundred years could be a precursor to the north and south poles trading places, the researchers suggest.

[I believe that many things happening around the globe could be explained by this.]

What we found that is interesting in our models is a correlation between these transient [shifts] and reversals [of Earth's magnetic field]," says Olson. "We kind of speculate there is that connection but the chaos in the core is going to prevent us from making accurate predictions for a long time." Bruce Buffett of the University of California, Berkeley, says the authors present an intriguing proof of concept with their model. "They are suggesting very cautiously that maybe this rapid change is somehow suggestive of us going into a reversal event," he says. "You could imagine if the field were to collapse it would have disastrous consequences for communication systems and power grids."

I remember reading that pole reversals have been shown to have happened in the past (through the presence of things like magnetite in "wrong" locations). But not exactly clockwork, and not catastrophic. The world would continue to spin along the north-south axis, east to west. The only thing that might be affected would be compass needles, but they're not terribly accurate anyways since magnetic north shifts regularly (it's not the true, axial north). And with digital compasses, the problem would be solved as easily as adding or subtracting 180 degrees. I've come across this 2012 scenario before, and it's a tough one to believe when some common sense is applied.

posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 05:04 AM

Originally posted by Revelations21
reply to post by sirjunlegun

would explain as to why there has been an increased activity in the atmosphere.[color= red] people have been seeing interesting things in Alaska beams of light shooting into the sky parting the clouds and such. that is a lot of energy being expelled. Very interesting post think there is a connection to HARRP?
related findings in other posts here on ATS

No offense ment, however you care to back up this statement on who, where and when... I live in Alaska and there hasn't been anything said, seen or reported on about beams of light shooting into the sky parting clouds..

So i'm going to say that is probably false... Unless your able to come up with some really convincing evidence..


posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 09:48 AM
yea know i wish just in one thread , just one thread we could actually come to a conclusion

posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 10:47 PM
reply to post by sirjunlegun

JEES I wonder how fast we will be propelled back to earth that's the scary part.

I think I should have bought parachutes now

posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 12:11 AM
I think everyone is missing something here. If there were no gravity even in just a part of the world (I admit that makes no sense to me), the first thing to be pulled into space would be our atmosphere. The cold vacuum of space would surround us all, followed by a very fast death. The air is here thanks to gravity, remember. So, unless you are sealed in something like a decompression chamber, my guess is you would be out of luck in such a scenario. In my opinion, there's no way TPB could have enough psychopaths in their employment to make something like this happen without at least a few spilling the beans due to cowardice or self interest. Thanks for the doom-porn though

posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 09:25 AM

Originally posted by longlostbrother

you are out of your mind..

Go google gravitational lensing...

Ohoh! Can I really?

Done! 522,000 results in 0.34 seconds.


Here, go read this:

Ok done!

I'm sure that's all just based on, "little more than a working hypothesis"...

Excellent, then we are in agreement, because I too am sure of this! I thought we were gonna argue or something for a minute there; you sure have a weird way of tellin' a guy you agree with him.

That article about the Gravity Probe mission was interesting, thanks for the link!
I could not help but notice that the journalist who wrote it--who I am certain is an excellent reporter with top marks in such diverse subjects as Journalistic Journalism and The Tao of Embedding and Wanking the Bollocks; we know they hire only the Best of the Best of the Best at General Electri.....sorry, I meant the Microsoft no, my apologies, I meant to say, the Microsoft National Broadcasting Company MSNBC--may not have had the strongest grasp of the concepts of theory and hypothesis, or how the use and definition of those terms in popular vernacular differs from their usage and definition within the field of Science, perhaps because Journalism is an excellent career path for those who discover that the only thing they are able to do re: Science is spell it, provided they have access to (popular)Spell Check software.

For instance, in paragraph 2...

The Gravity Probe B mission was launched in 2004 to study two aspects of Einstein's theory about gravity: the geodetic effect[...] and frame-dragging[...]
Now, hopefully, you will see that you must agree, whether you like it or not, that there is nothing at all wrong here. Everything checks out: grammar, syntax, "Einstein" spelled correctly, numbers denoting the year are all in their proper places and right-side-up.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world[...]repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment[...]This is significantly different from the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is unproven or speculative.
Der Wiki
Why is that the common form? Because a formal scientific theory is a proper noun...and the names are always structured in one of two ways:

  1. "Theory of (X)"
  2. "(X) Theory"

In contrast, common usage of the word theory means to have an idea about something. "Hey, I've got a theory about why I'm out of my mind..."
So the scientific form was expected, because we're talking about science, and Einstein, etc. But Einstein did not have a formal Theory of Gravity, or Gravitational Theory...but he did have ideas about gravity that were implicit in his theories. So the common form is (technically)correct...Einstein's theory about gravity. Nothing wrong here.

BUT...our intrepid reporter isn't done yet:

Gravity Probe B used four ultra-precise gyroscopes to measure the two gravitational hypotheses.

The dissonance of those final words! O, Discordia!

Why the discord?

A scientific hypothesis is a proposed explanation of a phenomenon which still has to be rigorously tested.
Der Wiki
A scientific hypothesis is a proposed explanation which gives rise to predictions that can be tested through observation and experiment. You don't measure hypotheses. You don't even measure predictions of hypotheses. You measure real phenomena, through observation, then check that against what was predicted by the framework of the hypotheses.

My turn to give you an article to should check out The Pioneer Anomaly

The discrepancy[...]leaves open staggering possibilities that would force wholesale reprinting of all physics books:

  • Invisible dark matter is tugging at the probes
  • Other dimensions create small forces we don't understand
  • Gravity works differently than we think

How entertaining!
How can that last one be? Simple: because we don't know how gravity works. We have ideas, i.e., hypotheses, but even when our hypotheses provide accurate predictions of the results of gravity, they fall short in providing an explanation for gravity, because we don't know where to look to test the explanation. We're sorta stuck in between hypothesis and theory; a working hypothesis.

A working hypothesis is a hypothesis that is provisionally accepted as a basis for further research in the hope that a tenable theory will be produced, even if the hypothesis ultimately fails.
Der Wiki

One last little bit of info, from some very credible people:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.

Source - American Association for the Advancement of Science

Isn't it nice, how we're all in agreement with each is a good day on the Internets..
edit on 13/2/1 by Tsurugi because: Editing.

new topics

<< 21  22  23   >>

log in