What is Digg?Sponsored by Double Your Dating
The Best Way To Get A Woman To Pick YOU Up view!
doubleyourdating.com - Here’s how to get any woman to start a conversation with you. Can you say "Bye bye rejection..."???
59 Comments
- BaphClass, on 06/28/2009, -7/+22THIS MEANS THE SUN WILL GIVE OFF A MASSIVE SOLAR STORM IN 2012, THE EXACT SAME TIME EARTH'S MAGNETIC POLES WILL BE SWITCHED. THIS WILL COINCIDE WITH THE LARGE HADRON COLLIDER (AHEM, I MEAN BLACK HOLE FACTORY) EXPERIMENTS, WHICH WILL CAUSE THE EARTH TO BE SCOURED OF ALL LIFE, JUST LIKE THE MAYANS PREDICTED.
/Absolute ***** Retard - Bloyru, on 06/28/2009, -3/+12Do not stare directly at the sun.
- DirtPile, on 06/28/2009, -0/+9It's my favorite because it's the King of the Planets.
- Altair27, on 06/28/2009, -1/+9I looked at the sun for a while trying to spot differences. Couldn't see anything. Still Can't see anything... at all...
Is this normal? - KentuckyBoy2, on 06/28/2009, -8/+15I bet the lack of solar flares has to do with global warming. If we could just reduce those greenhouse gases the flares would return. I hope Obama fixes that after he finishes with health care.
- Nyvhek, on 06/28/2009, -0/+6Because that's how much power is directed at each square meter (roughly the size of a card table) of the earth alone, not the total power output of the sun.
- hankthedwarf, on 06/28/2009, -4/+10I think you meant '/Mel Gibson'
- DirtPile, on 06/28/2009, -1/+7It's always quiet before the solar storm.
- DirtPile, on 06/28/2009, -3/+9No, see, fixing healthcare in this country is the only way to bring the flares back. Or, Congress could just legislate more solar flares.
- Threlly1, on 06/28/2009, -3/+8'So-called sunspots' ?
There's nothing 'so-called' about them.
They ARE called sun-spots. - robertisaar, on 06/28/2009, -0/+5no, that means you're close to finding a difference
- DirtPile, on 06/28/2009, -0/+5Should I stop when it hurts?
- ThraxyWaxy, on 06/28/2009, -1/+6See, I was right! We're sapping all its energy with these darn solar panels!
- wbrns, on 06/28/2009, -1/+5The sun is so fascinating...one of my favorite parts of astronomy 101 in college.
- nospaces, on 06/28/2009, -0/+411:15, restate my assumptions: 1. Mathematics is the language of nature. 2. Everything around us can be represented and understood through numbers. 3. If you graph these numbers, patterns emerge. Therefore: There are patterns everywhere in nature.
- pak314, on 06/28/2009, -2/+69:13, Personal note: When I was a little kid my mother told me not to stare into the sun. So once when I was six, I did. The doctors didn't know if my eyes would ever heal. I was terrified, alone in that darkness. Slowly daylight crept in through the bandages, and I could see, but something else had changed inside of me. That day I had my first headache.
- Totz83, on 06/28/2009, -2/+5Buy guns people. Those flares are coming right for us
- piieerrrree, on 06/28/2009, -1/+4I THINK YOU MEANT /JIMMYTHECLAM
- darknecross, on 06/28/2009, -2/+4I don't know what's wrong with these scientists; I always see spots when I look at the Sun.
- curtisag, on 06/28/2009, -2/+4http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers. ...
We have very few sunspots in the past 2 years, yes. But over the past 50 years, we have been at a solar maximum as seen in the wikipedia graph on sunspots. It's not *****. - curtisag, on 06/28/2009, -1/+3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers. ...
Not sure why that link got cut off. - lilhelper, on 06/28/2009, -2/+4The sun is in control.
- pw378, on 06/29/2009, -0/+2Because Gore's Church of anthropic global warming doesn't like science that gives credence against their approved doctrine.
- Remmiz, on 06/28/2009, -1/+3The sun is a mass of incandescent gas...
- Vivifyer, on 06/29/2009, -0/+2a gigantic nuclear furnace...
- clockworknation, on 06/28/2009, -4/+6I BLAME GLOBAL WARMING!!
- pln2bz, on 06/28/2009, -1/+3That people can read that list of anomalies and nevertheless Digg it down is true testament to the power of pre-existing belief over enigmatic observations. There was a time when curiosity inspired children to go into the sciences. Now, people tell children that it's all figured out in spite of ample evidence to the contrary -- and then wonder why more kids don't go into science.
- hankthedwarf, on 06/28/2009, -3/+5YOU try to spot the differences in the sun.
- TheUnlearn, on 06/28/2009, -0/+2damn you!
- chriswastaken, on 10/27/2009, -0/+2The more you know.
http://palmgoon.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/the ... - WasabiBomb, on 06/28/2009, -4/+5Ya know, the only reason I popped in here to read the comments was because I knew that somebody would try to use the article to push the anti-AGW party line, even though it's not related at all. Well done, sir.
- , on 06/28/2009, -0/+1The life cycle of a star is so long that 2 years is hardly cause for alarm.
Now, if where no sunspots for 2000 years... Then I'd be a little worried. - anonymous1986, on 06/28/2009, -2/+3What the ***** are you spouting?
That's not even a valid link.
From the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8008473. ...
"The Sun is the dimmest it has been for nearly a century.
There are no sunspots, very few solar flares - and our nearest star is the quietest it has been for a very long time." - anonymous1986, on 06/28/2009, -3/+4I think you've got the whole science wrong, reading the article might actually help.
Quotes such as this spring to mind:
"Prof Lockwood was one of the first researchers to show that the Sun's activity has been gradually decreasing since 1985, yet overall global temperatures have continued to rise."
"The Sun normally undergoes an 11-year cycle of activity. At its peak, it has a tumultuous boiling atmosphere that spits out flares and planet-sized chunks of super-hot gas. This is followed by a calmer period.
Last year, it was expected that it would have been hotting up after a quiet spell. But instead it hit a 50-year low in solar wind pressure, a 55-year low in radio emissions, and a 100-year low in sunspot activity." - cinch123, on 06/28/2009, -2/+3There is actually a pretty good explanation out there for what's going on.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/17jun_jets ...
FTA: "a jet stream deep inside the sun is migrating slower than usual through the star's interior, giving rise to the current lack of sunspots." - elliotm01, on 06/29/2009, -0/+1If you've read the book, you've probably already seen this video, but here's my 4 month old submission.
http://digg.com/space/Thunderbolts_of_the_Gods_Pla ...
And the official website.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/ - the2989, on 06/30/2009, -0/+1EPIC FAIL
- MelvinSchlubman, on 06/29/2009, -0/+1You're trying too hard.
- kreatre2007, on 06/29/2009, -0/+1The ***** it's not related. The Sun is the source of ALL energy, and matter on Earth in one way or another. It's totally unscientific to ignore the Sun when talking about climate change. Mankind is not the biggest source of CO2 in the atmosphere. The oceans are. With the exception of minor changes, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has remained fairly constant. Twenty years ago, when this global warming crap started up, it was noticed then that the Sun was experiencing intense solar storms (sun spots). I remember radio paging services being knocked out because of them. It was at this time, that there was a small but noticeable change in the average temperature of not only the Earth but other planets as well (something that has also been ignored). After the solar storms started to disappear around 1998, the average temperature of the Earth began to level off and begin go go down. With that evidence staring you in the face, how can you blame mankind for climate change? It's ***** ridiculous. Start thinking and stop listening to people like Al Gore and other people who have a vested financial interest in pushing this global warming hoax.
- pln2bz, on 06/29/2009, -0/+1It's a popular past time on Digg and Slashdot to come up with reasons for not learning alternative cosmologies. I've read ...
The Electric Universe by Wal Thornhill,
The Electric Sky by Don Scott,
The Invisible Universe (an intro to radio astronomy) by Gerrit Verschuur,
God Star by Dwardu Cardona,
The Extinction of the Mammoth by Charles Ginenthal,
The Electric Life of Michael Faraday by Alan Hirshfeld,
The Northern Lights (Kristian Birkeland bio) by Lucy Jago
(a James Maxwell bio)
Carl Sagan and Immanuel Velikovsky by Charles Ginenthal
Secrets of the Aether (an example of an aether theory) by David Thomson
I'm in the midst of reading ...
Interstellar Matters by Gerrit Verschuur
In Search of the Big Bang by John Gribbin
I'm about to read ...
Seeing Red by Halton Arp
The Virtue of Heresy (one chapter independently reviews the Electric Universe) by Hilton Ratcliffe
Gaseous Conductors: Theory and Engineering Applications by James Dillon Cobine
I've seen the videos ("Cosmology Quest" and "Thunderbolts of the Gods"). I even keep tabs on Talbott's "Symbols of an Alien Sky", which he's been uploading to YouTube.
I keep relatively close tabs on the critics, including ...
Leroy Ellenberger
Tom Bridgman
Schroeder (first name?)
The Skeptical Inquirer
Tim Thompson
I've also read Don Scott's the rebuttals to their pieces.
I've read all of Wal's articles on holoscience.com, and a good number of the Picture of the Day's on thunderbolts.info. Most Thunderblogs.
I've recently started reading peer-review journal articles by Anthony Peratt, Gerrit Verschuur, Wal Thornhill, Hannes Alfven and others in IEEE's Transactions on Plasma Sciences, as well as more conventional papers pertaining to radio astronomy and conventional Big Bang Theory. When I don't understand something in a paper, I ask somebody to help me to understand it. You'd be surprised how helpful some people are willing to be, if you just ask for help and express an honest curiosity.
I'm not explaining all of this to impress anybody. My point is that I've read and watched all of that, and NOTHING that I've read suggests that these guys are wrong. In fact, their arguments win hands-down on all points.
The only point of difficulty I've ever found pertains to the CMB's spectra. It's a thermal black-body microwave spectra. The thing is this: Plasmas conducting electrical current are copious generators of microwaves. There's a saying the plasma laboratory that plasmas ALWAYS generate microwaves. But, a Birkeland Current will generate synchrotron radiation -- which is spectrally spikey in comparison to thermal radiation (a bell curve). There are actually many possible explanations for ways of thermalizing the synchrotron.
One thing that astrophysicists won't touch with a 10-foot pole is the widespread observation of critical ionization velocities in space. It shows up (approximately) as 50 km/s, 35 km/s and 13 km/s in radio astronomy contour maps in the "ANOMALOUS high-velocity clouds" and elsewhere. It's very strong proof for electrical transmission lines in space. Not only that, but Gerrit Verschuur has identified 200 correlations between WMAP hotspots and the neutral hydrogen filaments (which Marklund convection predicts will surround and penetrate the Birkeland Currents). Marklund convection is the same reason why 90% of galactic neutral hydrogen (HI) exists beyond the optical disc surrounding spiral galaxies. The simple fact that the Milky Way galaxy shows up as nonthermal synchrotron radiation suggests strongly that it's a copious source for electrons spiraling around magnetic fields (Birkeland Currents).
To attain this level of understanding, I spent 2.5 years talking to people on Slashdot and here on Digg to get a feel for how people respond to the arguments. I'd even occasionally review comments on Bad Astronomy and Universe Today. I'm fairly familiar with the Electric Universe wikipedia wars. Slashdot really cracked me up. You'd honestly think that they would get it, but they appear to "know too much". There appears to be an inverse correlation between people who study in college and people who "get it". Those who study less are more open to new ideas than those who studied a lot. There is actually a book written on this very subject ...
Disciplined Minds: A Critical Look at Salaried Professionals and the Soul-Battering System That Shapes Their Lives by Jeff Schmidt
Everywhere I go, I find people who just don't care to investigate it in the same way that they investigated the conventional theories. In general, people behave as though they can evaluate this relatively new, completely different PARADIGM (yes, I used the word) without actually reading what it says. It's quite a sight to see.
As for myself, I've read enough by now to know who is right. Wal Thornhill appears to have figured out gravity. It's a dipole effect like the Van der Waals that results of large charge accumulation. What happens is that this charge accumulation distorts the electrons. To fully understand it, you'd have to learn about Ralph Sansbury.
Ralph Sansbury has disproven the conventional theory for photons and electrons. Electrons apparently have structure and electromagnetic radiation is a resonant transaction that does not complete until the light actually makes contact with its destination. It's extremely weird, and all of the confusion with respect to light is understandable given Sansbury's (very unexpected) results. But his experiment is quite simple and definitive (Google "Ralph Sansbury subtron").
There is an aether -- as common sense demands when you have a transverse wave (Einstein's earliest publications were closer to the truth ...). The Sun is charge-positive and Birkeland Currents (electrical transmission lines) have already been observed to criss-cross space on all observable scales. People who don't believe it should pay more attention to Wal Thornhill's website. The Electric Universe is highly predictive for some of the most unusual things we are seeing in space, like the formation of a new galaxy within the neighborhood of the Milky Way. From http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=ep8d37 ... ...
[begin quote]
Two new studies could well lend further support to it [MOND]. In these studies, Professor Kroupa and his former colleague Dr. Manuel Metz, working in collaboration with Professor Dr. Gerhard Hensler and Dr. Christian Theis from the University of Vienna, and Dr. Helmut Jerjen from the Australian National University, Canberra, have examined so-called “satellite galaxies.” This term is used for dwarf galaxy companions of the Milky Way, some of which contain only a few thousand stars.
According to the best cosmological models, they exist presumably in hundreds around most of the major galaxies. Up to now, however, only 30 such satellites have been observed around the Milky Way, a discrepancy in numbers which is commonly attributed to the fact that the light emitted from the majority of satellite galaxies is so faint they remain invisible.
A detailed study of these stellar agglomerates has revealed some astonishing phenomena: “First of all, there is something unusual about their distribution,” Professor Kroupa explains, “the satellites should be uniformly arranged around their mother galaxy, but this is not what we found.” More precisely, all classical satellites of the Milky Way - the eleven brightest dwarf galaxies - lie more or less in the same plane, they are forming some sort of a disc in the sky. The research team has also been able to show that most of these satellite galaxies rotate in the same direction around the Milky Way - like the planets revolve around the Sun.
Contradiction upon Contradiction
The physicists do believe that this phenomenon can only be explained if the satellites were created a long time ago through collisions between younger galaxies. “The fragments produced by such an event can form rotating dwarf galaxies,” explains Dr. Metz, who has recently moved across to the Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (German Aero-space Center). But there is an interesting catch to this crash theory, “theoretical calculations tell us that the satellites created cannot contain any dark matter.” This assumption, however, stands in contradiction to another observation. “The stars in the satellites we have observed are moving much faster than predicted by the Gravitational Law. If classical physics holds this can only be attributed to the presence of dark matter,” Manuel Metz states.
Or one must assume that some basic fundamental principles of physics have hitherto been incorrectly understood. “The only solution would be to reject Newton´s classical theory of gravitation,” says Pavel Kroupa. “We probably live in a non-Newton universe. If this is true, then our observations could be explained without dark matter.” Such approaches are finding support amongst other research teams in Europe, too.
The deviations detected in the satellite galaxy data support the hypothesis that in space where extremely weak accelerations predominate, a “modified Newton dynamic” must be adopted. This conclusion has far-reaching consequences for fundamental physics in general, and also for cosmological theories. Famous astrophysicist Bob Sanders from the University of Groningen declares: “The authors of this paper make a strong argument. Their result is entirely consistent with the expectations of modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND), but completely opposite to the predictions of the dark matter hypothesis. Rarely is an observational test so definite."
[end quote]
The American public has better things to do than pay attention to astrophysics. Laypeople are not supposed to be able to understand these sorts of things, and most people will dismiss you if and when you say that you understand it.
In my own experience, it's merely a problem of understanding the sequence of events (the history of science), the philosophy of science (what is good and bad science), learning the two theories and actively communicating with others about the topic. Mathematics is surprisingly only modestly necessary for comparing paradigms. There's enough information out there about concepts by now that the models can be conceptually compared. Occam's Razor reveals itself without the math.
But I'm just a layperson, of course, so what do I know? Apparently not much. - poitsplace, on 06/29/2009, -0/+1Actually this is just a tiny part of the explanation. They have no idea what's causing the sun's "jet stream" to move more slowly. But other things are happening as well. Even if it gets to the area they expect it to produce sunspots...the magnetic field of the sun is continuing to weaken. By the end of the year (at current rates) it may go so low sunspots can't even form. Other signs of this, like a reduction in contrast of sunspots, have been noticed for years (look up Livingston and Penn's paper for more details).
The answer is really quite simple, we've entered a grand minimum. It's likely cycles 24 and 25 (and possibly quite a few more) will be very weak. Why the sun goes into a minimum...is the hard question to answer. - piieerrrree, on 06/28/2009, -0/+1PI <3
- RealityMonster, on 06/29/2009, -1/+1Photino birds. The heat death of the universe is coming sooner than we think.
- curtisag, on 06/28/2009, -3/+3I have the science right, you are obviously ignorant of the fact that the overall number of sunspots within the 11 year cycle can drastically change over time, sometimes the 11 year cycle has almost zero sunspots. Look at the ***** graph on wikipedia about sunspots you jackass. Since the 1600's the frequency of sunspots in each cycle has increased dramatically. It's a fact and they have no idea how much this affects the climate. So take your head out of your ass and accept that we don't know what's going on with the sun and it's interaction with the climate. Further study is clearly called for.
- NC7U, on 06/29/2009, -0/+0Hello Radio
- poitsplace, on 06/29/2009, -0/+0To be fair, this happens to be the rough equivalent of a VERY extended hale winter...so it should be expected to be a more profound change. I really think the sun's main contribution to climate is as an "external" synchronizing force. There are many climate systems (The AMO, PDO and tradewinds, for example) that aren't fully understood but which show a rather pronounced cycle. The sun's regular cycles likely tweak them (and others) into synchronization. Sometimes they oppose each other, sometimes they reinforce each other.
- dougbell, on 06/29/2009, -1/+1We have angered it by not sacrificing virgins on stone altars.
- AzulBlanco, on 06/29/2009, -0/+0Do the two theories or groups of theory have to be mutually exclusive? Fusion, internal causes of cycles and the electric star/external plasma glow/galaxy influence - which I have read about but never seen presented as having any major influence on the sun's nature - as in the energies involved are never strong enough - nice info, the sun is my favorite subject in physics...but saying it's one or the other as you seem to suggest seems unnecessary - the "thermonuclear fusion being so entrenched" - perhaps you could briefly explain why fusion as we know it now for the sun would have to be dismantled if new theories (in electromagnetism) about the changing sun have to come to light...
-
Show 51 - 61 of 61 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
