Sun flares affect our pineal gland, causing mass awakening?

reply to post by twitchy

Probably has something to do with arguing over 2001 solar flares vs. the general precept of this thread, one is important, the other is ridiculous semantics.

The only 1 playing the nitpicking and word misuse game is you.

One of the notions in science is to test ideas. Here Phage proposes a test. His test is to ask if there were previous events that produced the expected result. The answer is fairly obvious. No. Instead of examining the evidence being presented I see the typical close minded rejection of the evidence.

Originally posted by stereologist
An odd request from someone that has been nitpicking and making absurd and false statements all along.

Most animals are tropical... Do you know how difficult it is to debate a ridiculous contention? I took debate class, we used to call that a stumper. Something so utterly ridiculous that there's no real way to argue against it, the sky is green because I see that is green, for instance. No stereologist, most animals aren't tropical.
It's also astonishingly difficult to argue with someone who just makes crap up and attributes it to you as some kind of ridiclous counterpoint.

reply to post by twitchy

What are you talking about? Do you mind showing me where I posted that "such conditions existed on Earth outside of the lab", or anything even remotely similar to that? I've taken basic physics course, none of them mentioned pineal glands though. I've actually been largely careful to avoid discussing the Sun's magnetic field because I'm not overly qualified to comment on it, it's not my background, but I'm glad we've had a chance to talk stereologist, I'd overestimated you.

It's fairly simple to see what you wrote. The link to your post is here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Your quote discusses a field that is

60-Hz sinusoidal magnetic field at intensities of 0.1–0.5 millitesla (mT)

Here is what you wrote in that post

exposure to electromagnetic fields have been shown to induce vusual and auditory hallucinations in humans, so it stands to reason that magnetic fields are going to have some effect on our perception.

You offered an article and then wrote something about fields below it.

Are you saying that what you wrote had nothing to do with the article you quoted?

reply to post by twitchy

Most animals are tropical... Do you know how difficult it is to debate a ridiculous contention? I took debate class, we used to call that a stumper. Something so utterly ridiculous that there's no real way to argue against it, the sky is green because I see that is green, for instance. No stereologist, most animals aren't tropical.
It's also astonishingly difficult to argue with someone who just makes crap up and attributes it to you as some kind of ridiclous counterpoint.

Do you have idea what a measure of abundance is? Can you provide me with 10 or more examples of measures of abundance?

I do not care what you claim to have done such as taking a physics course or being in a debate club. The evidence suggests that neither is true. Someone who debates would know the difference between deduced and detected. Someone who debates would not immediately stoop to the laughable nitpicking you're mired in.

Most animals are tropical. If you had any evidence to the contrary you'd have provided it. Instead you've chosen to reveal your personal lack of understanding of the issue at hand.

Originally posted by stereologist
You offered an article and then wrote something about fields below it.
Are you saying that what you wrote had nothing to do with the article you quoted?

Again, do you mind showing me where I posted that "such conditions existed on Earth outside of the lab", or anything even remotely similar to that?
That's awesome, I think you meant to say, "Are you saying what you wrote said anything other than what you wrote." though. See how utterly ridiculous being misquoted gets, but you know that.
The article I linked says something different because I didn't write the article. I didn't say anything remotely like 'such conditions existed on Earth outside of the lab', but I did hopefully teach you about thunderstorms and lightning.

Pineal glands and magnetic fields, and interesting thread again beaten down to a semantic fued over words like 'most animals' and 'detected' by members here who are lauded for their ability to do it. People wonder why ATS just isn't what is used to be. This is interesting stuff, it would be a great thread, but no, we've got to get the debunkers on it. They got caught in a circle of doublespeak this time.

Originally posted by twitchy
reply to post by Phage

 

Deduced, detected, ascertained, distinguished, recognised, alluded to, stumbled upon, how silly do you want to get, it was from the surface of the planet earth that we realized the sun had a magnetic field, was it not?

Really? The toma(y)to toma(h)to defense? How many dictionary quotes have you posted in this thread?

You clearly implied the Sun's magnetic fields reached the Earth as evidenced by the ex-text that you presented to attempt to support your notion.

reply to post by twitchy

Again, do you mind showing me where I posted that "such conditions existed on Earth outside of the lab", or anything even remotely similar to that?

You appear to be admitting that the article and quote had nothing whatsoever to do with what you posted. It was pointless window dressing for no apparent reason.

The article I linked says something different because I didn't write the article.

Obviously you did not and could not write such an article.

Pineal glands and magnetic fields, and interesting thread again beaten down to a semantic fued over words like 'most animals' and 'detected' by members here who are lauded for their ability to do it. People wonder why ATS just isn't what is used to be. This is interesting stuff, it would be a great thread, but no, we've got to get the debunkers on it. They got caught in a circle of doublespeak this time.

The issue is about you in particular misrepresenting. The issue is about you introducing the nitpicking. The issue is about you introducing the whining.

The fact of matter is that sun flares are not magnetic. They do not change the magnetic field of the Earth. The Sun's field does not change the magnetic field at the Earth's surface.

Originally posted by nii900

,

The pineal gland in birds is thought to be related to magnetic navigation, so the OP might be on to something. Fascinating...

[].........Windows to the Universe



An example for The Sun:

Rasa or- Raka - heaven in Hebrew
Rasatala www.vaniquotes.org...
tala - matter(ial) world
alieninterview.org...
Briareus is one of three giant sons--the Hecatoncheires--...

Definition: Hecatoncheires, the fierce gigantic 100-handers,

2.bp.blogspot.com...
www.catalase.com...
This page is a summary of the
anatomical structures of the retina,
which is an extremely important
light-sensitive layer at the back
surface of the eye.
www.ivy-rose.co.uk...
The retina includes many intricate structures essential for vision.
www.deltagen.com...

esciencenews.com...
New IBEX data show heliosphere's long-theorized bow shock does not exist
"the interaction changes instantaneously"
now.....first - it was then it wasn't ' instantaneously'
[ats]http://esciencenews.com/files/imagecache/image_medium/images/201205106344790.jpg[ats]