posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 07:10 PM
Originally posted by cluckerspud
Originally posted by leaualorin
The laws that we know MIGHT NOT APPLY for "some things" in outer space...
Like the charged particle wave in 2005 that reached earth in a few minutes instead of DAYS...
How do you explain that?
WHY did the "rules" did not applied in that case?
Or why were they broken?
And the "funny part" : could it happen again as a bad joke from deep space?
While that did intrigue the science community, they had an understanding why it was possible:
“We have an important clue”. He noted that when the explosion occurred, sunspot 720 was located at a special place on the Sun: 60 degrees west
longitude. This is significant, he said, because from this location “the sunspot was magnetically connected to Earth”. By this he meant that the
lines of force of the Sun’s magnetic field, followed outward from that point along their spiraling path, lead directly to the Earth. The NASA
headline article called this “a superhighway for protons leading all the way from sunspot 720 to our planet”.
The Explosion that Shattered Solar Theory
Charged particles do not take a pre-determined amount of time to reach the earth. It varies. This variation was no doubt amazing, but it is only an
example of a "theory" being broken. NOT a particular law of physics being broken.
Thanks for sharing, I remember this story. Quite fascinating.
Yes, they did find a possible explanation AFTER it happened. Why wouldn't it be possible they miss the boat once again? It could happen, and they
would be baffled, just like the other time. Science isn't even close to reality/absolute truth. Science is wrong sometimes. Can't you learn from the
I have a question for you: what was the purpose of this thread? I don't see it's use. Everytime someone talks about Nibiru, you, Stereologist or
Weedwacker rush into the thread to tell to everybody how wrong Sitchin is and how much of a poor scholar he is. I mean, I don't see anything
interesting or particularly new to the subject in your thread. The title is interesting, but it is only to mislead the reader into your useless
thread. Aside from the usual mocking and scholar discrediting, it is useless. Don't we have enough of the now-so-cliche debunker thread? Wouldn't
you be the first to stone me if I made a thread with such a crappy title?
I mean, what were you trying to achieve with this? To me it doesn't even look like an attempt at convincing believers, the substance you brought is
so poor. If it was your intention, well I'd suggest you use another technique because you will never convince a believer this way.
By the way, cloaking is scientifically feasable, so I guess we're back at the core of the problem, aren't we?