If I were writing the above bolded statement, it would look like this:
Particles seem (from our perspective) to "pop" in and out of our frame of existence, and information seems to be able to travel faster than the speed of light.
Up until 100 years ago, people assumed that what they could see, hear, touch, smell and taste was all that existed. Now we know that the world we can see, hear, touch, smell and taste is less than 0.000001% of what is available beyond our senses.
That being said, our understanding of existence could easily be similarly limited, and things that seem to "appear" and "disappear" may simply be moving in a "dimension" (for lack of a better phrase) that we cannot apprehend yet.
(Not that I think you would disagree with this, Zenoonez).
That is not to say that I am religious or that I have faith in any particular thing, but just to say that I have transitioned from being an atheist to an agnostic. +rep for an interesting convo
OhGee, You went back and added the word "like" so my reply stands. I replied as if you were addressing me and it turns out you WERE apparently addressing me, so.. yeah. read my reply.
Depends on the religion.
Chanting growers is fine.
Mighty Jah is a perfectly acceptable topic albeit religious.
The church of global warming is well represented.
Just stay away from the big three
anti, you too, you seem to always be too sure that no one can know anything besides what you yourself now know.
today the fifth night of the ninth wave of the Mayan Calendar is activated.Put your seatbelts on.
There are three fundamental flaws in the 'other planets are warming' argument. Not all planets in the solar system are warming. The sun has shown no long term trend since 1950 and in fact has shown a slight cooling trend in recent decades. There are explanations for why other planets are warming.
The basis of this argument is that the sun must be causing global warming and in fact, warming throughout the solar system. There are several flaws in this line of thought. Firstly, the characterization that the whole solar system is warming is erroneous. Around 6 planets or moons out of the more than 100 bodies in the solar system have been observed to be warming. On the other hand, Uranus is cooling (Young 2001).
Secondly, the theory that a brightening sun is causing global warming falls apart when you consider the sun has shown little to no trend since the 1950s. A variety of independent measurements of solar activity including satellite data, sunspot numbers, UV levels and solar magnetograms all paint a consistent picture. Over the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been moving in opposite directions.
That begs the question - what is causing warming on other planets? With the exception of Pluto, climate change on other planets are fairly understood:
Martian climate is primarily driven by dust and albedo. Global dust storms increase the surface albedo by settling brighter dust on dark surfaces. Higher albedo leads to more sunlight being reflected which has a cooling effect. Snapshots of Mars' surface in 1977 and 1999 find that the surface was brighter in 1977 and darker in 1999. However, this doesn't necessarily point to a long term warming trend - the 1977 snapshot was made shortly after a global dust storm while the 1999 snapshot occured before a dust storm. Consequently, there is little empirical evidence that long term global warming on Mars is occuring (Richardson 2007).
Neptune's orbit is 164 years so observations (1950 to present day) span less than a third of a Neptunian year. Climate modelling of Neptune suggests its brightening is a seasonal response (Sromovsky 2003). Eg - Neptune's southern hemisphere is heading into summer.
Neptune's largest moon, Triton, has warmed since the Voyager space probe visited it in 1989. The moon is approaching an extreme southern summer, a season that occurs every few hundred years. During this special time, the moon's southern hemisphere receives more direct sunlight (Elliot 1998).
Jupiter's storms are fueled by the planet's own internal heat (sunlight is 4% the level of solar energy at Earth). When several storms merge into one large storm (eg - Red Spot Jr), the planet loses its ability to mix heat, causing warming at the equator and cooling at the poles (Marcus 2006).
Pluto's warming is not clearly understood. Pluto's orbit is much more elliptical than that of the other planets, and its rotational axis is tipped by a large angle relative to its orbit. Both factors could contribute to drastic seasonal changes. As Pluto's orbit is equivalent to 248 Earth years and observed warming spans only 14 years, it is likely this is a seasonal response (Sromovsky 2003).
The sun has shown no long term trend since 1950 and in fact has shown a slight cooling trend in recent decades. There are explanations for why other planets are warming.
So I should buy her book? Why don't you just quote the relevant information for us. PS - people selling a book are often time seeking profit. If the information is true, why does she need to profit? She's going to die with the rest of us in 2012. (Or is it october?) Money will be useless to the fully-evolved "one-mind." It will also be useless if the planet is destroyed, or if there is a new civilization. So why doesn't she simply publish this book for free online, in order to save as many of us as possible?The explanation for why other planets are warming is explained by Susan J.Rennison in her book 2012: What's really happening
Your link is NOT to NASA, but to a website called "The Extinction Protocol". It is full of misinformation and very short on science.
Here's an actual NASA quote (from my post last night):
"NASA is pleased with the National Research Council report on heliophysics. As you note, this report includes a worst-case analysis of what could happen today if there were a repetition of the biggest solar storm ever recorded (in 1859). The problem is the way such information can be used out of context. There is no reason to expect such a large solar storm in the near future, certainly not in 2012 specifically. Your reference to “the event in 2012” illustrates this problem. There is no prediction of an “event in 2012”. We don’t even know if the next solar maximum will take place in that year."
The bit in red is particularly important. Read it a couple of times and let it sink in.
So I should buy her book? Why don't you just quote the relevant information for us. PS - people selling a book are often time seeking profit. If the information is true, why does she need to profit? She's going to die with the rest of us in 2012. (Or is it october?) Money will be useless to the fully-evolved "one-mind." It will also be useless if the planet is destroyed, or if there is a new civilization. So why doesn't she simply publish this book for free online, in order to save as many of us as possible?
Oh right, because she's making a profit off of the gullibility and fears of her fellow "one".