Another Triangle on our sun January 21, 2013 : Coronal Hole or Someone Using the Stargate again?

Looks like Masonry Symbolism...
Them boys love to put them everywhere....lol

reply to post by fourthmeal


Just simply asking questions about things he brought up and how he "knows" them that's all.

reply to post by fourthmeal

You are right, it really isn't trolling. It is more of a bullying. But I think of bullies as trolls so...

So all this information that OP is stating as matter of fact should not be questioned?

How he came by this information should not wondered about?

Him saying he has traveled by "beamship" doesn't merit any questions?

This isn't a blind faith thread here.

Kind of similar to this rock some dude found in Kentucky. Looks like our sun with a triangle on it and possibly an alignment...



www.abovetopsecret.com...

Well i agree that bullying or trolling is unacceptable. I also agree that if people make claims like that, then they should at least be prepared to answer questions about them. Stargates? Huge ufo fleets? And the creator?. . Im genuinely interested as this subject is new to me.

The Creator is a very simple one, I can answer that.

What made you?

The answer that you come up with in your head is the Creator. And if you then took the answer and decided that scientifically, God or some other Source was not a good answer, then that's ok. Because scientists who don't believe in those things DO believe in the big bang or something that started all this in motion. OK, so what started the big bang? Ah. The Creator.

This would also be the same Creator our forefathers used in description of their documents.

A Coronal hole is good, feel free to use it any day, but it's kinda warm, not just as warm as the rest of the Corona.
The vaguely triangular shape is easily explained, it's the fading outline of a Honda Civic's exhaust as it whizzed into the sun, (a young couple off on their hols, via the sols)

what's impressive is the size of this dark spot..

Originally posted by TheDoctor46
Well i agree that bullying or trolling is unacceptable. I also agree that if people make claims like that, then they should at least be prepared to answer questions about them. Stargates? Huge ufo fleets? And the creator?. . Im genuinely interested as this subject is new to me.

Agreed also that trolling or bullying is unacceptable.

However, the OP has posted in the Space Exploration forum part of ATS.

Not Skunk Works or Gray Matter. Nor any other part of the site where sources to extraordinary claims is not required.

For example, if this thread were in Skunk Works, he could sit there and claim to be an alien that pilots a star ship through a stargate in our sun, and not required to provide one source or shred of proof, as that forum is for "Highly Speculative" threads.

However, THIS is the space exploration forum. Make a wild claim here, and you do need to provide sources other than your own word. You can theorize all you want, but when someone asks for sources, then a poster should give it, least their credibility go down the tubes to zero.

Which has been the case with the OP here.

reply to post by fourthmeal

I respect that he wants answers but his motives are made clear by the other remarks, the antagonizing of the sources.

How can I "antagonize" the sources when absolutely none are given???

My motives are: where did he get all this knowledge he states like it's absolute fact?

Also questions on some of the specifics OP brought up.

Like eriktheawful said above, this is not the Gray Matter or Skunk Works or Highly Speculative forum.

It is Space Exploration.

Originally posted by Fisherr
what's impressive is the size of this dark spot..

There are bigger, this one covers a big part of the hemisphere.

reply to post by goochball


Awesome Find! Great Job linking it here.
Can we find any other pics of the Sun with the triangle depicted anywhere else from anicent times?
It would also be cool to figure out what maybe aligning with it. Like the moon and earth or another planet....
I bet the guy on that show Unearthed would be all over it....trying to figure it out...

How could there be a stargate in a giant gas ball? Sol is about 10 million degrees hot, and on top of that, anything that even remotely came close to Sol would just be sucked in and vaporized. It's a cool picture, but is not proof of our Sun being a gateway of sorts.

reply to post by muzzleflash


I always assumed they were on about extreme inertia resulting in super massive gravitational forces on the atoms of the craft and anything in it, when talking about FTL?

I see your point about mass, and agree...i can't see how mass can increase by going very fast either.

ETA; Wasn't Einstein only talking about FTL within a gravitational field, like the Earth's or Sun's anyway?

If there's no gravity, inertia shouldn't be a problem either should it?

Well there is a physics in the magical kingdom, where an all positive magnet exists that has mass. Then massless and possibly imaginary electrons and photons exist. The electrons are massless and all negative, yet they mysterious orbit the positive magnet without clicking together.

But, the all positive magnets all click together to form things.

Of course the sun is nuclear and hot, and there are black holes, and many things that always have holes in the theories, but then they ignore osbservation and do some complex math to add patches to their theories.

But, I've never seen two positive magnets click together, and in the Electric Universe, their observations on comets makes sense, and you have twin vortex magnetism with gravity as a result, of the magnetism. Everything is in motion, and all things have positive and negative poles. What they call electrons/photons are most likely magnetic waves coming from the poles. And most things are complex structures, with magnetic patterns in them.

This bears out in laboratory findings, and the micro/macro works as well. As Above, So Below.

Not to mention, the video from before:


Sonoluminesence - Cavitation - NanoGeometry & The Future of Technology (CONTINUATION)

Here he gives two examples in the first 8 minutes of cavitation, the star in the jar, where they passed a sound wave though a bubble and the cavitation (ie release of energy from the resonance inbalance) reached the temperature of the sun.

Not that all the liquid steamed away and the jar broke or anything, just contained within the bubble.

Where the pistol shrimp snapped shut its claw, and released a cavitational bubble that reached the temperature of the sun's corona, and then a wave that sent the crab backwards.

Note the pistol shrimp's claw remained cool.

Just because the sun's corona is hot, doesnt make the sun hot. Its not in the EU universe.

But because the corona is hot, this does mean a rather large triangle makes a good opening for large crafts.

reply to post by Chamberf=6


Course it should be questioned.

Everything should be questioned, even established theories...which is what the OP is doing.

Since you seem to agree with questioning theories too...it's surprising you seem so snide in your tone.

Or perhaps you feel mainstream theories shouldn't be questioned?

reply to post by goochball


To me, it looks more like two gigantic sphere's streaming out of the triangle on the Sun.

Maybe this is the original motive for the triangle with the 'all seeing eye' near top center? The eye, being a huge craft of some kind...weird? Oh yes.

Originally posted by MysterX

If there's no gravity, inertia shouldn't be a problem either should it?

edit on 22-1-2013 by MysterX because: added comment

Correct.

At least from my own limited understanding that appears to be correct as far as I am aware.
Now some future mind blowing discovery may prove us wrong but for now, I am gonna stick with what you said.

This is exactly why space probes (or asteroids etc) can travel through deep space indefinitely.

Originally posted by MysterX
reply to post by Chamberf=6

 

Course it should be questioned.

Everything should be questioned, even established theories...which is what the OP is doing.

Since you seem to agree with questioning theories too...it's surprising you seem so snide in your tone.

Or perhaps you feel mainstream theories shouldn't be questioned?

The OP has been stating, not questioning. (well not besides the OP, which he later showed his hand in his belief it is a stargate)

He is not presenting things in this thread as theories. He is just stating them (with no proof, source, link).

What is snide in asking a question repeatedly that has been repeatedly ignored?

I don't care if "mainstream theories" are questioned. Why should I?

Originally posted by MysterX
reply to post by muzzleflash

 

I always assumed they were on about extreme inertia resulting in super massive gravitational forces on the atoms of the craft and anything in it, when talking about FTL?

I see your point about mass, and agree...i can't see how mass can increase by going very fast either.

ETA; Wasn't Einstein only talking about FTL within a gravitational field, like the Earth's or Sun's anyway?

If there's no gravity, inertia shouldn't be a problem either should it?

edit on 22-1-2013 by MysterX because: added comment

Okay, with Special Relativity it's important to note that the measurements that are being talked about are from out outside observer.

For mass:

As an object's speed approaches the speed of light from an observer's point of view, its relativistic mass increases thereby making it more and more difficult to accelerate it from within the observer's frame of reference.

bolding from me.

For example: Time Dilation.

For people on a space ship getting closer and closer to the speed of light, time to them on that ship seems to be normal, they feel nothing at all.
Yet if they could look out a window, the rest of the universe would appear to be speeding up, with time going faster and faster.
The inverse is true: to outside observers, who are not moving with the ship, if they could look inside it, it would appear that time seems to be slowing down more and more the closer the space ship gets to light speed.

The same can be applied to the mass. But there are problems with this in that special relativity defines mass as "rest mass" and also as "invariant mass"

"invariant mass" is the same mass for all observers from all reference frames.

There have been many authors and papers on this subject debating over whether the theory is wrong. Here is a link discussing it:

Mass In Special Relativity