the LHC, solar flares and 2012, this is how they are linked and why!

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by theAymen

 

Heaps more mistakes here.
1. Jupiter did not lose a ring. A cloud band disappeared. It's happened before. It will happen again.
2. The red spot of Jupiter is not gone. In fact there is a new one forming.
3. Isotope half lifes are not changing
4. Solar maximums occur every 11 years
5. The difference of 1 year in an 11 year cycle is important. It goes to the understanding of the sun.
6. There is no evidence that a change in the sun's magnetic field can be detected at the LHC

That is why I called this pseudoscience - it is.

wow..ok i`l entertain you.

1) yes i know..but its a MAJOR ring/cloud band has dissapeared..do you think the sun is related?

2) yes the red spot has gone...how can it form a "new" one then lol

3)yes they are..they were thought to be constant...but scientists have made a link to the sun. i just found a good linkdecay rates effected by sun
try and google it before your rebuttle.

4&5) The unreliability of solar maximam predictions is demonstrated in that NASA had previously predicted the solar maximum for 2010/2011 and possibly to occur as late as 2012. Previously, on March 10, 2006, NASA researchers had announced that the next solar maximum would be the strongest since the historic maximum in 1958 in which the northern lights could be seen as far south as Rome, approximately 42° north of the equator

6) most of our communication equipment would not work at the time of the largest solar flares.
so it would effect us here on earth..who knows how...though generating a wormhole during a magnetic flux....what do you think can happen

reply to post by theAymen


You use the word theory in the vernacular, yet you pretend that there is some scientific basis to your claims.

Why would we take this thread with a pinch of salt? You posted something off the deep end. So when others point this out and you appear to have some inkling that these ideas are unfounded why the bad and unseemly response?

Attempting to connect this thread with an entertainment show is in a way appropriate. Star Trek makes up a lot of stuff and doesn't have to follow what is known science. They aren't bound by being reasonable. Your thread is based on a number of mistaken ideas and false claims. Are you saying that you are making all of this up for entertainment purposes and that nothing should be taken as having any verisimilitude?

Here is a video that exemplifies the content of the thread and also addresses your reference to Star Trek.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by theAymen

 

Frankly, I haven't got a clue what you are attempting to convey in that post.

im just saying.."apparently" 12,500 years ago someone also called noah was predicting a catycalismic event.

LHC has a lot to do with things. The sun is a gateway, its connected by filaments to all the stars, and they're differening sizes and orbits, are differing space-time channels. But all stars are the lasers/projectors that erect the hologram, so they're the phone line home to Higher Self too. Whatever the bloodlines wish to do has to be allowed for the Highest Good and to further our growth or it won't be happening at all. There are no coincidences because Holograms are Constructs, and the that means no one is ever alone here.

reply to post by stereologist


look a theory is a theory..i think that generating a wormhole during a magnetic solar flare could be hazardous.

so i take it you think not...

also if you believe in string theory then everything i have said is very possible...thank you

reply to post by theAymen


You have no clue what you are talking about.
1. The cloud band may not be gone. It may simply be covered by higher clouds.

2. No the red spot is not gone. You obviously have no clue here.
Jupiter's New Red Spot

3. I've read the article before. It states that the output of the sun may cause interactions with material so that the decay rate appears to be increased. I suggest you actually read the article.

Did you read this part of the article you linked to:

Mohapatra agrees that the effect looks genuine. But, he warns, genuine-looking effects are often later revealed as statistical flukes or the result of subtle defects in measuring technique. Still, he adds, “it’s interesting enough that people in the nuclear field should go back and look at old data.”

4&5. I live at 37N and I have seen the northern lights in my area in the last decade. The historic maximum was not 1958. Again you seem to be making things up. It's getting to be an obvious pattern that others have pointed out.

6. That's a strawman argument. Failure of communication equipment has nothing to do with the LHC detecting a change in the sun's magnetic field.

reply to post by theAymen


We all know that there was no great flood. The name sounding similar to the acronym is as meaningless a connection as anything else you have claimed in your so-called theory.

reply to post by Unity_99


Wow. The same foolish, unsubstantiated claims that have been spammed across ATS. Do you have any evidence for these statements? How does any of this relate to the LHC?

reply to post by theAymen

look a theory is a theory

Depends. Are you using the term in the vernacular as a wild eyed guess or are you pretending to use the word in the sense of science?

None of your claims are connected in any way to science. Even the weird claims here about creating wormholes is gibberish since no one has ever done that. Saying that mixing wormholes and solar flares is dangerous is just more baloney heaped on top of the rest of the baloney.

For those that might fall for this falsehood that the red spot is gone here is a link to NASA recommending that people get a look at the red spot right now.

Closest Encounter with Jupiter until 2022

The view through a telescope is excellent. Because Jupiter is so close, the planet's disk can be seen in rare detail--and there is a lot to see. For instance, the Great Red Spot, a cyclone twice as wide as Earth, is bumping up against another storm called "Red Spot Jr." The apparition of two planet-sized tempests grinding against one another must be seen to be believed.

Here is another part from that article

Also, Jupiter's trademark South Equatorial Belt (SEB) recently vanished, possibly submerging itself beneath high clouds. Researchers say it could reappear at any moment.

One demonstrably false claim after another is all that there is to this thread.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by theAymen

 

You have no clue what you are talking about.
1. The cloud band may not be gone. It may simply be covered by higher clouds.

maybe..but isnt that a theory as well...there are many...tutut

2. No the red spot is not gone. You obviously have no clue here.
Jupiter's New Red Spot

it must of went, to be able to grow a new one..do you think that the sun is involved??

3. I've read the article before. It states that the output of the sun may cause interactions with material so that the decay rate appears to be increased. I suggest you actually read the article.
Mohapatra agrees that the effect looks genuine. But, he warns, genuine-looking effects are often later revealed as statistical flukes or the result of subtle defects in measuring technique. Still, he adds, “it’s interesting enough that people in the nuclear field should go back and look at old data.”

firstly there is ore evidence for the sun to be related then anything else.

secoundly that scientist only gives a warning that it "could" be a fluke...anyway hes doing what your doing..belittling a plausible theory...the main theory is what you should be paying attention to..not a cockraoch scientist, being famous for a lame rebuttle...my lil sis could of done that...

...anyway...the name of that scientist provokes me...mohapatra...do you know the sikh/hindu indian millionaires are major investors in the LHC

4&5. I live at 37N and I have seen the northern lights in my area in the last decade. The historic maximum was not 1958. Again you seem to be making things up. It's getting to be an obvious pattern that others have pointed out.

tut tut..that comment was copy & pasted from wikipedia..there was no need to make anything up.
wik- solar flares

6. That's a strawman argument. Failure of communication equipment has nothing to do with the LHC detecting a change in the sun's magnetic field.

are you sure?? the E&M forces will be very strong....think about it

reply to post by theAymen


1. That is a theory. It is based on past events and a knowledge of Jupiter. You claim there are others. Care to tell us instead of pretending that you know about others. Please post scientific links to these other theories.

2. To claim one must have disappeared for a new one to appear is a logical fallacy. There are multiple red spots and have been over time. Please learn the basics about Jupiter andyou won't make these sorts of mistakes again.

3. Your claims are hogwash
a. The scientist points out that the evidence may not be evidence at all. The material is disputed. part of that dispute is whether or not the evidence is real. Pointing out possible flaws is a part of the scientific process. It is quite evident that you need to learn how this process works. The claims made about changes in the process are not accepted at present and are in the midst of being discussed and checked and rechecked. That is the way science works.
b. Your efforts to discredit the speaker are typical of your posts. Sad, so sad.

4&5. Your claim that

tut tut..that comment was copy & pasted from wikipedia..there was no need to make anything up

Is an utter failure on your part to cover up your ridiculous claims and mistakes. No it was not copied and pasted from the wikipedia. That makes that a lie. It's no longer a mistake on your part it is a demonstrable lie.

6. Again a strawman argument is a failure. Please provide any evidence that the LHC would be affected by the sun's magnetic field.

reply to post by stereologist


wow..are you part of the clan....lol

firstly...stop calling me a liar..i never claimed its 100% fact.

look that wikipedia link, it is there for you to see in the above thread. 3rd or 4th paragraph.
calling it hogwash and calling me a liar is very cute as well....its a theory, if you dont like.. call it sci-fi.

if youv got a personal issue with me . u2u me...your lame tactics to profile me is pathetic...
WHY WOULD YOU WANT ME BANNED....AND HOW OFTEN DO YOU DO THIS TO PEOPLE.
are you the reason why ATS has become known for breaking news then its conspiracy/sci/fi threads.

i have never written in the breaking news threads or the discoveries threads..as i consider them factual..THIS THREAD IS FOR THIS TOPIC...THIS MAKES MORE SENCE THEN MOST OF THE OTHER 2012 THEORIES.

as for tempting me to swear....i get it now...cool mate...why would you try something like that..is my lame theory worth the negative posts..sheesh its not as obsurd as your making out..
and watch your mouth or youll join "maybematbenot" on the #&5! list!

reply to post by dragnet53


Do you have anything to say or is this just another of your long line of pointless posts? Is there anything you have to add in support of the hoax called 2012?

reply to post by dragnet53


It was changed because more data was received. If you look at the current data it matches up perfectly with a small maximum in 2013, while the 2012 prediction does not fit at all.

reply to post by dragnet53


That is a lie. Lucus managed by his own words to get banned from GLP. He was also banned here for bad behavior and possibly knowing spreading hoaxes.

It is also a lie that he defended his hoaxes. He ran and hid and did not defend his hoaxes.

Telling the truth is a lot easier. It's a lesson that you need to learn.

reply to post by theAymen


Here is what I wrote:

I live at 37N and I have seen the northern lights in my area in the last decade. The historic maximum was not 1958. Again you seem to be making things up. It's getting to be an obvious pattern that others have pointed out.

You quoted me and wrote:

tut tut..that comment was copy & pasted from wikipedia..there was no need to make anything up.

That is a lie.

Here is your response:

firstly...stop calling me a liar..i never claimed its 100% fact.

That is a second lie. I never called you a liar.

Now you shout out another off topic straw man argument

WHY WOULD YOU WANT ME BANNED....AND HOW OFTEN DO YOU DO THIS TO PEOPLE.

Why are you making a lame attempt to divert attention from the obvious fact that you have posted a string of falsehoods in this thread?

Posting lies is frowned on. A simple way to stop people from pointing out your falsehoods is to stop posting falsehoods.

Since you have stooped to this level of discourse it seems safe to say that you cannot defend any of the items you have claimed. Thanks for admitting in your own coarse way that you are mistaken about these issues.