"Oh Ye of Little Faith." - Matthew OOPS
C. Cagle
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
In article <sddq6nl...@corp.supernews.com>, Dennis B. Peters
<dbpe...@tscnet.com> wrote:
> Tony Chappelle wrote in message - >
> >Furthermore - if there is anything in your 'Holy' bible concerning
> >astronomical events then it is all stuff that has been plagiarised
> >from the hard scientific work put in by other
>
> In fact there are legitamate refrences to astronomical events. Read David
> Rhole ;" A test of Time.
> Further evidence has been uncovered;"independent of Christian Sources; That
> support much of the Old testemant. Go figure!!
>
>
> Emotional rambling in both camps have been proven here.
>
> One ; as I have stated before; is that there are referable astronomical
> events in the ancient writtings that are limited by the church canon.
>
> Two; the events that this zealot decries is pure bunk.
Sort of. There *will be* great cataclysmic events which will kill
almost everyone (at least two thirds) in the world but they will follow
the events which will stimulate a magnetic dipole reversal or dipole
excursion event, not a rotational pole shift.
> This is after all an astronomy news group. There are lots of other places
> that such misplaced foolishness will be more readily accepted.
>
> HOW LONG MUST WE SUFFER THE CRY "BEWARE THE GREAT CONJUNCTION!!!!"
One should be concerned with Coronal Mass Ejections and the ability of
a well aimed CME to stimulate the Earth's dipole field into undergoing
a current vector rotation. Whether or not a planetary alignment
could, through some unknown butterfly effect, be related to the Sun
ejecting a sufficiently powerful CME towards the Earth that could do
the trick is unknown. But tumbling the rotational axis of the Earth
through an alignment of planets isn't going to happen.
God created the luminaries for "signs, and for seasons, and for days,
and years." Men see Comets Hyakutake and Hale-Bopp come in quick
succession and don't suppose that God is behind their appearances nor
are they able to discern the signs implicit in their appearance. The
press continues to characterize comets as dirty snowballs when, in
fact, that is nothing but pure bunk.
Most comets have an active electromagnetotoroidal (EMT) structure at
their core which is a large scale current loop system. During the
toroidal current mode the comet displays magnetic dipole features and
during the poloidal current mode the comet displays electric dipole
features. By interaction with external fields a comet's EMT can be
stimulated into undergoing a 90 degree current vector rotation which
causes it to undergo dipole excursion or dipole reversal sequences.
And there is plenty of data which suggests they do just that. However,
scientists are wedded to the concept that internal fluid motions in
planetary bodies generate dipole fields. So, even when they see a
comet's magnetic bowshock they are in such deep denial that they have
manufactured other explanations for its existence. The reality is that
electromagnetotoroidal structures are facts of nature. When the Sun
ejects a Coronal Mass Ejection (CME) it is ejecting a large scale EMT
which is in the toroidal current mode. Such structures maintain their
integrity because they really are a coherent phenomenon. They are
large scale current loop singularities and the evidence that they are
such is ubiquitous but nevertheless steadfastly ignored by people who
otherwise would normally be considered to be rational people.
When a cold moon of Jupiter (Europa) was found to have a magnetic
dipole field scientists were reduced to supposing that the moon has a
subsurface salty ocean which could conduct a current and somehow
armwavingly generate such a field. The reality is that EMTs are large
scale current loop singularities which can generate mass in the form of
neutrons along their poloidal axis when in the poloidal current mode.
A comet with an active EMT can generate mass in its core and actually
grow. There's considerable data that the Earth generates mass in its
interior each time it phases through a dipole excursion or dipole
reversal sequence. When the Earth's EMT is stimulated into such an
event then great geological changes will begin to be manifested almost
immediately.
The Earth has a history of gross expansion. But this expansion, even
though data which can be said to support it is ubiquitous, is denied by
most geologists and geophysicists. I suggest two sites which can give
you more information on Earth expansion.
http://people.enternet.com.au/~jmaxlow/
and
There is a process for the generation of mass which occurs in the core
of dynamically oscillating EMT structures. When the Earth's EMT is in
the toroidal current mode it displays magnetic dipole properties but
with the pi/2 radian (90 degree) rotation of the current vector at each
point in the toroidal current structure it makes the conversion to a
poloidal current mode and the dipole field disappears.
Jupiter's moon Io also has an active EMT which is busy generating mass.
Scientists have speculated that if Io does have a magnetic field it is
about 1/25th strength of that of the Earth's. But if Io's EMT is
presently in the poloidal current mode then Io's EMT should display the
properties of an electric dipole and any magnetic field sensed is
related to that which may be generated by the motion of ions in
Jupiter's strong field. In fact, Io's orbit around Jupiter is heavily
populated with ions which is indicative that Io is really in the
electric dipole mode. Io can be compared to Venus whose EMT, I claim,
is presently in the poloidal current mode (electric dipole mode).
Venus has an unexpectedly long ion tail which recently Earth's orbit
swept through. Just days ago, scientists reported that comet
Hyakutake's 500 million kilometer ion tail was detected by a satellite.
This was quite shocking for scientists to find that a comet could have
such a long tail. Of course, those scientists have paid no attention
to the EMT model.
From an Associated Press story posted at:
http://www.clive.canoe.ca/SpaceArchive/jul2_io.html
"Using instruments on the Galileo spacecraft, which is orbiting Jupiter,
researchers calculated the temperature of lava spewing from volcanoes on
Io. They found that 12 vents had temperatures of 2,200 degrees F, and
that one vent was as hot as 3,100 degrees."
Scientists have supposed that Io's hot lavas (hotter than any Earth
lavas) are generated by tidal heating that is supposedly caused by the
physical tidal distortions of the moon (which really haven't been
measured) as it orbits Jupiter. The reality is that there really is a
limit to how much heat can be generated in this way even if it were
true. As the temperature of molten rocks go up the viscosity
(resistance to flow) goes down and there are really no shear forces
which could provide resistance to flow if tidal distortions were to
take place. When a liquid starts to flow there is a shearing stress
and the opposing reaction is of the nature of an internal friction and
the equilibrium attained when the flow becomes steady is brought about
by the viscosity of the fluid opposing the shearing motion. The lavas
coming out of those vents are far above the temperature which could be
induced by tidal frictions (resistance to shear by high viscosity)
because the viscosity is inversely related to temperature so that as
the temperature rises the viscosity drops and no shearing forces exist
to produce high temperatures. The reality is that Io may indeed
undergo gravitationally distortion but that the pseudoscientific
argument that its hot lavas are produced by tidal heating should be
abandoned and never brought up again. I'm not saying that those who
produced the idea should be subjected to public ridicule for the rest
of their lives for introducing pathological science to explain the
problem but only that they ought to take up some other occupation.
Charles Cagle
reasonable civil comments and questions can be sent via email to
sing...@telestream.com
Wally Anglesea™
wrote:
>[[ This message was both posted and mailed: see
> the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
>
>In article <sddq6nl...@corp.supernews.com>, Dennis B. Peters
><dbpe...@tscnet.com> wrote:
>
>> Tony Chappelle wrote in message - >
>> >Furthermore - if there is anything in your 'Holy' bible concerning
>> >astronomical events then it is all stuff that has been plagiarised
>> >from the hard scientific work put in by other
>>
>> In fact there are legitamate refrences to astronomical events. Read David
>> Rhole ;" A test of Time.
>> Further evidence has been uncovered;"independent of Christian Sources; That
>> support much of the Old testemant. Go figure!!
>>
>>
>> Emotional rambling in both camps have been proven here.
>>
>> One ; as I have stated before; is that there are referable astronomical
>> events in the ancient writtings that are limited by the church canon.
>>
>> Two; the events that this zealot decries is pure bunk.
>
>Sort of. There *will be* great cataclysmic events which will kill
>almost everyone (at least two thirds) in the world but they will follow
>the events which will stimulate a magnetic dipole reversal or dipole
>excursion event, not a rotational pole shift.
Pray tell us, when will this happen? and what excuses will you have
when it doesn't?
(Don't email me. Make it public.)
--
Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~wanglese/pebble.htm
Fight spam:
http://www.caube.org.au/
"You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."
C. Cagle
Wally Anglesea™ <wang...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Apr 2000 06:52:23 GMT, "C. Cagle" <sing...@telestream.com>
> wrote:
>
> >[[ This message was both posted and mailed: see
> > the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
> >
> >In article <sddq6nl...@corp.supernews.com>, Dennis B. Peters
> ><dbpe...@tscnet.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Tony Chappelle wrote in message - >
> >> >Furthermore - if there is anything in your 'Holy' bible concerning
> >> >astronomical events then it is all stuff that has been plagiarised
> >> >from the hard scientific work put in by other
> >>
> >> In fact there are legitamate refrences to astronomical events. Read David
> >> Rhole ;" A test of Time.
> >> Further evidence has been uncovered;"independent of Christian Sources; That
> >> support much of the Old testemant. Go figure!!
> >>
> >>
> >> Emotional rambling in both camps have been proven here.
> >>
> >> One ; as I have stated before; is that there are referable astronomical
> >> events in the ancient writtings that are limited by the church canon.
> >>
> >> Two; the events that this zealot decries is pure bunk.
> >
> >Sort of. There *will be* great cataclysmic events which will kill
> >almost everyone (at least two thirds) in the world but they will follow
> >the events which will stimulate a magnetic dipole reversal or dipole
> >excursion event, not a rotational pole shift.
>
> Pray tell us, when will this happen? and what excuses will you have
> when it doesn't?
>
> (Don't email me. Make it public.)
Sure, why not? Do you suppose that it something that should not be
made public? Believe me, I'm telling you the truth when I say that it
will be a very public event. You should be concerned with what you
could do to survive these coming events not with when they are going to
happen because it is certain that you will not survive them with the
present condition of your heart.
I won't be making any excuses because it will happen. When? Soon.
Maybe not this year and maybe not this decade but soon. As soon as a
Coronal Mass Ejection of the right alignment and sufficient intensity
strikes the Earth's field. You want me to name a date when this will
occur? Sorry. I don't name dates. Why? Because I don't know the
date and I never have said that I do. Personally, however, I expect
it within the next thirteen years which means it could start this month
or perhaps not until sometime in 2013. But it will come. But whenever
it happens it will be associated with an especially strong solar
maximum.
Charles Cagle
Duane Morse
data and in the Greenland ice core. The Pre-Holocene Rapid Climate Change
graph from the ARCSS/GISP2 Ice Core, if applied to a 6000 year timeline,
clearly shows the effects of an event that happened the last time Hale-Bopp
came through in 2209BC (and 105 years before the flood). And also an event
that may have been a pole-shift at around the time the Chinese colander
began in 1953BC. The planetary alignments of 3-2-1951bc and 3-2-1953bc are
nearly identical to the ones coming up on 5-5-2000 and 5-5-2002. But they
are mirrors of each other. They occur in the opposite order and the planets
are on the other side of the Sun. Now, I don't know if the planetary
positions are responsible for a pole-shift or not, but one happened back
then, and the Bible says another will happen in the future .The Bible also
mentions the destruction of Mystery Babylon as being many countries shooting
all their arrows at Babylon at the same time (on an impulse). The noise from
the destruction moves the Earth. Right now China, Russia, North Korea all
have nukes that can reach the U.S.. If we get a large CME at around 5-5-2000
that knocks out the defense satellites, it may be the event that makes these
countries impulsively shoot all their nukes at the same time. If enough
bombs go off over the U.S. at the same time, the forces involved could push
the Earth slightly out of orbit and begin the pole-shift. At the next
pole-shift the Earth is supposed to reel to and fro like a drunkard and
finally fall on it's side, never to rise again. If you would like a bit more
info you can visit my page...
http://www.computerroom.com/planetary_alignments_and_pole-shift.htm
make sure the above line is one line.
If you would like my CorelDRAW!8 file of the ice core I can send it to you.
It is set up to give 1mm per year on a 6000 year timeline.
from the ARCSS/GISP2 Ice Core
"C. Cagle" <sing...@telestream.com> wrote in message
news:100420002354417270%sing...@telestream.com...
Robert Narsavage
> Wally AngleseaT <wang...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 11 Apr 2000 06:52:23 GMT, "C. Cagle" <sing...@telestream.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
> > >
> > >In article <sddq6nl...@corp.supernews.com>, Dennis B. Peters
> > ><dbpe...@tscnet.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Tony Chappelle wrote in message - >
> > >> >Furthermore - if there is anything in your 'Holy' bible concerning
> > >> >astronomical events then it is all stuff that has been plagiarised
> > >> >from the hard scientific work put in by other
> > >>
> > >> In fact there are legitamate refrences to astronomical events. Read David
> > >> Rhole ;" A test of Time.
> > >> Further evidence has been uncovered;"independent of Christian Sources; That
> > >> support much of the Old testemant. Go figure!!
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Emotional rambling in both camps have been proven here.
> > >>
> > >> One ; as I have stated before; is that there are referable astronomical
> > >> events in the ancient writtings that are limited by the church canon.
> > >>
> > >> Two; the events that this zealot decries is pure bunk.
> > >
> > >Sort of. There *will be* great cataclysmic events which will kill
> > >almost everyone (at least two thirds) in the world but they will follow
> > >the events which will stimulate a magnetic dipole reversal or dipole
> > >excursion event, not a rotational pole shift.
> >
J. Scott Miller
>
> Well, I have found evidence for a pole-shift at Babel. Both in astronomical
> data and in the Greenland ice core.
And you have published these results in what peer-refereed scientific journal?
If you haven't you are simply blowing smoke.
--
J. Scott Miller, Program Coordinator Scott....@louisville.edu
Gheens Science Center and Rauch Planetarium
http://www.louisville.edu/planetarium
University of Louisville
Duane Morse
some journal.
Maybe you should do a little of your own research and then criticize.
Duane
"J. Scott Miller" <Scott....@louisville.edu> wrote in message
news:38F3661A...@louisville.edu...
> Duane Morse wrote:
> >
> > Well, I have found evidence for a pole-shift at Babel. Both in
astronomical
> > data and in the Greenland ice core.
>
J. Scott Miller
>
> Truth is truth. The fact of gravity doesn't depend on being published in
> some journal.
> Maybe you should do a little of your own research and then criticize.
This is simple so even you can probably get it. If you make a claim of
scientific import, then it merits being checked by those who can, which is
done by publishing the results.
So, if you have something significant, publish it. Else, you are blowing
smoke to continue to make the claims unchecked.
Wally Anglesea™
<Du...@computerroom.com> wrote:
>Truth is truth. The fact of gravity doesn't depend on being published in
>some journal.
I thinnk that response speaks for itself. Your postulation is
therefore probably without foundation.
Wally Anglesea™
wrote:
>In article <2u06fss2og0ss9vqr...@news.ozemail.com.au>,
>Wally Anglesea™ <wang...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 11 Apr 2000 06:52:23 GMT, "C. Cagle" <sing...@telestream.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >[[ This message was both posted and mailed: see
>> > the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
>> >
>> >In article <sddq6nl...@corp.supernews.com>, Dennis B. Peters
>> ><dbpe...@tscnet.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Tony Chappelle wrote in message - >
>> >> >Furthermore - if there is anything in your 'Holy' bible concerning
>> >> >astronomical events then it is all stuff that has been plagiarised
>> >> >from the hard scientific work put in by other
>> >>
>> >> In fact there are legitamate refrences to astronomical events. Read David
>> >> Rhole ;" A test of Time.
>> >> Further evidence has been uncovered;"independent of Christian Sources; That
>> >> support much of the Old testemant. Go figure!!
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Emotional rambling in both camps have been proven here.
>> >>
>> >> One ; as I have stated before; is that there are referable astronomical
>> >> events in the ancient writtings that are limited by the church canon.
>> >>
>> >> Two; the events that this zealot decries is pure bunk.
>> >
>> >Sort of. There *will be* great cataclysmic events which will kill
>> >almost everyone (at least two thirds) in the world but they will follow
>> >the events which will stimulate a magnetic dipole reversal or dipole
>> >excursion event, not a rotational pole shift.
>>
>> Pray tell us, when will this happen? and what excuses will you have
>> when it doesn't?
>>
>> (Don't email me. Make it public.)
>
>Sure, why not? Do you suppose that it something that should not be
>made public? Believe me, I'm telling you the truth when I say that it
>will be a very public event. You should be concerned with what you
>could do to survive these coming events not with when they are going to
>happen because it is certain that you will not survive them with the
>present condition of your heart.
>
>I won't be making any excuses because it will happen. When? Soon.
>Maybe not this year and maybe not this decade but soon. As soon as a
>Coronal Mass Ejection of the right alignment and sufficient intensity
>strikes the Earth's field. You want me to name a date when this will
>occur? Sorry. I don't name dates. Why? Because I don't know the
>date and I never have said that I do.
That's what I like about doomsayers. They are always ducking and
weaving, but eventually, when there's an earthquake, some bad weather,
a volcano, or whatever, they can always claim "See, I told you so!"
after the event.
The reason I take that point is that you claim that "as soon as"
> Personally, however, I expect
>it within the next thirteen years which means it could start this month
>or perhaps not until sometime in 2013. But it will come. But whenever
>it happens it will be associated with an especially strong solar
>maximum.
>
>Charles Cagle
So I have to wait till 2013 to ask you why you got it wrong?. Fine.
It'll wait. I have a long memory, and a big database of prophecies
that don't happen.
C. Cagle
<Du...@computerroom.com> wrote:
> Well, I have found evidence for a pole-shift at Babel.
Oh! Really? When were you at Babel? Give us a break.
> Both in astronomical
> data and in the Greenland ice core. The Pre-Holocene Rapid Climate Change
> graph from the ARCSS/GISP2 Ice Core, if applied to a 6000 year timeline,
> clearly shows the effects of an event that happened the last time Hale-Bopp
> came through in 2209BC (and 105 years before the flood). And also an event
> that may have been a pole-shift at around the time the Chinese colander
> began in 1953BC. The planetary alignments of 3-2-1951bc and 3-2-1953bc are
> nearly identical to the ones coming up on 5-5-2000 and 5-5-2002. But they
> are mirrors of each other. They occur in the opposite order and the planets
> are on the other side of the Sun. Now, I don't know if the planetary
> positions are responsible for a pole-shift or not, but one happened back
> then, and the Bible says another will happen in the future .The Bible also
> mentions the destruction of Mystery Babylon as being many countries shooting
> all their arrows at Babylon at the same time (on an impulse). The noise from
> the destruction moves the Earth. Right now China, Russia, North Korea all
> have nukes that can reach the U.S.. If we get a large CME at around 5-5-2000
> that knocks out the defense satellites, it may be the event that makes these
> countries impulsively shoot all their nukes at the same time. If enough
> bombs go off over the U.S. at the same time, the forces involved could push
> the Earth slightly out of orbit and begin the pole-shift.
Absolute poppycock!
This show that you have witlessly supposed that the geological evidence
for dipole reversals was rotational pole reversals. This is pure
pseudoscience Duane. You've confused rotational poles with magnetic
poles. And if all the damn weapons in the world were put in a
concrete bunker and detonated at once it wouldn't shift the Earth.
Befoul it with radioactivity, yes, but shift it it? Get real.
Charles Cagle
Paul Schlyter
>Wally Anglesea™ <wang...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 11 Apr 2000 06:52:23 GMT, "C. Cagle" <sing...@telestream.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
>> >
>> >In article <sddq6nl...@corp.supernews.com>, Dennis B. Peters
>> ><dbpe...@tscnet.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Tony Chappelle wrote in message - >
>> >> >Furthermore - if there is anything in your 'Holy' bible concerning
>> >> >astronomical events then it is all stuff that has been plagiarised
>> >> >from the hard scientific work put in by other
>> >>
>> >> In fact there are legitamate refrences to astronomical events. Read David
>> >> Rhole ;" A test of Time.
>> >> Further evidence has been uncovered;"independent of Christian Sources; That
>> >> support much of the Old testemant. Go figure!!
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Emotional rambling in both camps have been proven here.
>> >>
>> >> One ; as I have stated before; is that there are referable astronomical
>> >> events in the ancient writtings that are limited by the church canon.
>> >>
>> >> Two; the events that this zealot decries is pure bunk.
>> >
>> >Sort of. There *will be* great cataclysmic events which will kill
>> >almost everyone (at least two thirds) in the world but they will follow
>> >the events which will stimulate a magnetic dipole reversal or dipole
>> >excursion event, not a rotational pole shift.
>>
>> when it doesn't?
>>
>> (Don't email me. Make it public.)
>
>Sure, why not? Do you suppose that it something that should not be
>made public? Believe me, I'm telling you the truth when I say that it
>will be a very public event. You should be concerned with what you
>could do to survive these coming events not with when they are going to
>happen because it is certain that you will not survive them with the
>present condition of your heart.
>
>I won't be making any excuses because it will happen. When? Soon.
>Maybe not this year and maybe not this decade but soon. As soon as a
>Coronal Mass Ejection of the right alignment and sufficient intensity
>strikes the Earth's field. You want me to name a date when this will
>occur? Sorry. I don't name dates. Why? Because I don't know the
>it within the next thirteen years which means it could start this month
>or perhaps not until sometime in 2013. But it will come. But whenever
>it happens it will be associated with an especially strong solar
>maximum.
>
>Charles Cagle
<wang...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 11 Apr 2000 06:52:23 GMT, "C. Cagle" <sing...@telestream.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>[[ This message was both posted and mailed: see
>>> the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
>>>
>>> In article <sddq6nl...@corp.supernews.com>, Dennis B. Peters
>>> <dbpe...@tscnet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tony Chappelle wrote in message - >
>>>>> Furthermore - if there is anything in your 'Holy' bible concerning
>>>>> astronomical events then it is all stuff that has been plagiarised
>>>>> from the hard scientific work put in by other
>>>>
>>>> In fact there are legitamate refrences to astronomical events. Read David
>>>> Rhole ;" A test of Time.
>>>> Further evidence has been uncovered;"independent of Christian Sources; That
>>>> support much of the Old testemant. Go figure!!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Emotional rambling in both camps have been proven here.
>>>>
>>>> One ; as I have stated before; is that there are referable astronomical
>>>> events in the ancient writtings that are limited by the church canon.
>>>>
>>>> Two; the events that this zealot decries is pure bunk.
>>>
>>> Sort of. There *will be* great cataclysmic events which will kill
>>> almost everyone (at least two thirds) in the world but they will follow
>>> the events which will stimulate a magnetic dipole reversal or dipole
>>> excursion event, not a rotational pole shift.
>>
>> Pray tell us, when will this happen? and what excuses will you have
>> when it doesn't?
>>
>> (Don't email me. Make it public.)
>
> Sure, why not? Do you suppose that it something that should not be
> made public? Believe me, I'm telling you the truth when I say that it
> will be a very public event.
That's a trivial truth -- did anyone ever claim that the physical
destruction of the world and killing of everyone would be a *private*
event?
> You should be concerned with what you could do to survive these
> coming events
Wouldn't it be quite pointless to try to survive an event which would
kill everyone? <g>
> not with when they are going to happen because it is certain that
> you will not survive them with the present condition of your heart.
If it happened, you wouldn't survive it either. BTW you probably
would commit suicide before you believed it would happen. Remember
Jim Jones, David Koresh, Heaven's Gate, Uganda, .... it's guys like
you who do such things.
> I won't be making any excuses because it will happen. When? Soon.
> Maybe not this year and maybe not this decade but soon. As soon as a
> Coronal Mass Ejection of the right alignment and sufficient intensity
> strikes the Earth's field.
If so, why didn't this already happen?
There have been a very large number of "alignments" of the planets
during the lifetime of the Earth, and even during the history of
mankind. If these "alignments" are as dangerous as you claim, why
didn't one of them already wipe out all life on Earth?
> You want me to name a date when this will occur? Sorry. I don't name
> dates. Why? Because I don't know the date and I never have said that
> I do.
If you don't know the date, why do you predict the event? As far as you
know, it may take five billion years before it happens - right?
> Personally, however, I expect it within the next thirteen years which
> means it could start this month or perhaps not until sometime in 2013.
Which brings us to the second question, which you did ignore:
# Pray tell us, when will this happen? AND WHAT EXCUSES WILL YOU HAVE
# WHEN IT DOESN'T?
Yeah, what will your excuses be? Think forward, to the year 2020 or
so: if it hasn't happened by then, what will your excuses be?
I predict your excuses will be one of:
1. It will happen later still....
2. You prayed it wouldn't happen, and your prayers "saved the world".
3. You're no longer a follower of that religious cult, and we shouldn't
blame you for your delusions of 13 years ago...
> But it will come. But whenever it happens it will be associated with
> an especially strong solar maximum.
Finally some words of truth from you: yes it will come -- in
approximately 5 billion years, when the Sun runs out of hydrogen.
WHat happens then could indeed be called "an especially strong solar
maximum". I wouldn't call 5 billion years "soon" though.... would you?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The other day I received an email from a lady who asked me about my
opinion about the upcoming planetary "alignment". I told her nothing
particular would happen, and pointed her to some web sites explaining
the facts about this. Which made her feel calmer, but her real
concern was her husband, who was into some religious cult and who was
giving up everything because of this upcoming planetary alignment....
It's at moments like this one realizes that guys like you aren't
merely harmless clowns, but that you actually do some real harm when
spreading these unfounded rumors.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
Grev Turegatan 40, S-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at saaf dot se or paul.schlyter at ausys dot se
WWW: http://hotel04.ausys.se/pausch http://welcome.to/pausch
J. Scott Miller
causing problems. His concern is with coronal mass ejections. Unfounded yes,
but not in line with the original poster of this thread. In fact, he earlier
in this thread pointed out to the offending individual the errors of his ways.
Now, if you want to berate him on his ideas of coronal mass ejections
affecting the Earth's magnetic field to the extent of causing problems, go
ahead. And yes, he does try to tie that to biblical end of the world hooey.
But don't confuse him with the planet alignment ilk. His is a different world
ending scenario.
C. Cagle
Robert Narsavage <AeroD...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_001F_01BFA3BB.791CB6C0
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> Cagle:
> You are, by reading your posts, very knowledgeable in your chosen field. =
> I am sure no one here will dispute that. But you are obviously a =
> creationist [ or, if you prefer, a follower of creationism ].
So? And you are what? A follower of Godless humanism?
> While I =
> personally can not see how one can be both a creationist AND a person =
> well-educated in the geosciences, I support your right to your opinions
Then shut the hell up and sit down and quit posting your whining tripe.
Because with your narrow vision of the universe you cannot see how God
and science are compatible you have confirmed that you comprehend
neither science nor God.
=
> and making them public [ although I feel this particular newsgroup is =
> not the one to post such viewpoints ].
Kiss off Robert!
=20
> However, your arm-waving and doomsday-predicting is becoming quite =
> tiresome.
Don't read it then. Pretty simple solution, eh? Too complex for that
evolved brain of yours? Oh, and learn to post correctly. Not only
are your opinions vapid but your posts are all screwed up. Fix it.
Learn to turn off the HTML posting of your browser. You look like an
idiot.
> While not on the same scale, your rhetoric is similar to me =
> posting the warning,=20
> " Great storms of rain, thunder, and hail will destroy crops and kill =
> people this year in the Midwest U.S. " Of course this will happen. We =
> all know this will occur. Even my 10-year-old niece could predict this =
> with a fair amount of certainty. =20
> What my meandering fingers are trying to type here, is that all of your =
> [ and others' ] bible-waving, God-fearing, repent-or-else predictions =
> read like some cartoonish nonsense every time a prediction comes and =
> goes - without anything happening.
A prediction comes and goes? Nitwit, do you mean that the time of a
predicted event came and went without the event taking place? Is that
what you meant to say but were too incompetent to say it?
Point out a single event that I have predicted which has not taken
place at the exact time I said it would. Of course, I've never made
any such predictions, you raging fool, so how the hell could they be
wrong?
> The Millennium change [ albeit, on =
> the calendar only ]; the " forgotten Leap Day " this past February; the =
> unprecedented solar winds just within the past week; the grouping of the =
> four planets just within the past few days. All occurrences which you =
> and others have forecasted to bring the entire world to its collective =
> knees, brought us more laughs and snickers, and brought you and your =
> fellow creationists more ridicule and discredit.
But you are a fool Robert, and a liar. (Or you can take your pick and
just be a fool if you prefer but you are one or the other or both). I
never said that any of this would bring the world to its collective
knees. You are just as much of a nitwit as those others with whom you
would like to group me. But you don't have the sense to figure out
what I really said but must mix it in with what others have stated and
then you moronically label it with my name on it. Get a grip.
> And now, the planetary alignment in May, " real " Millennium change at =
> the end of this year, the Inca calendar forecast in late 2002, and your =
> new prediction of an asteroidal cataclysm probably by the year 2013.
This is what I mean; you are fabricating stuff I never said. Where the
do I mention an asteroid? You really are a fool.
> Sort of like the boy who cried wolf too many times.
> I am not saying here that an asteroid will never impact our planet. I, =
> too, know it will. It has happened before, several times, in our =
> +4.5b-year existence. I know that the great BIG ONE will occur in =
> California. It has happened before, several times. I know that there =
> have been planetary alignments and solar eclipses and visits by comets. =
> They have happened before. And I don't need a dot-com to tell you this.
> All I am asking is that you post your creationist stories and fables in =
> the appropriate newsgroups, and leave this newsgroup for actual science =
> fact, not creation fiction.
And I would ask you to stick your ill formed inaccurate psychotic
opinion in your ear so it continues to produce an information loop of
nonsense from which you cannot escape. In other words, keep doing what
you've been doing. :-).
<snip the rest of this halfwit's HTML repost>
Charles Cagle
C. Cagle
Wally Anglesea™ <wang...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Apr 2000 15:34:36 GMT, "C. Cagle" <sing...@telestream.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <2u06fss2og0ss9vqr...@news.ozemail.com.au>,
> >Wally Anglesea™ <wang...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 11 Apr 2000 06:52:23 GMT, "C. Cagle" <sing...@telestream.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >[[ This message was both posted and mailed: see
> >> > the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
> >> >
> >> >In article <sddq6nl...@corp.supernews.com>, Dennis B. Peters
> >> ><dbpe...@tscnet.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Tony Chappelle wrote in message - >
> >> >> >Furthermore - if there is anything in your 'Holy' bible concerning
> >> >> >astronomical events then it is all stuff that has been plagiarised
> >> >> >from the hard scientific work put in by other
> >> >>
> >> >> In fact there are legitamate refrences to astronomical events. Read
> >> >> David
> >> >> Rhole ;" A test of Time.
> >> >> Further evidence has been uncovered;"independent of Christian Sources;
> >> >> That
> >> >> support much of the Old testemant. Go figure!!
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Emotional rambling in both camps have been proven here.
> >> >>
> >> >> One ; as I have stated before; is that there are referable astronomical
> >> >> events in the ancient writtings that are limited by the church canon.
> >> >>
> >> >> Two; the events that this zealot decries is pure bunk.
> >> >
> >> >Sort of. There *will be* great cataclysmic events which will kill
> >> >almost everyone (at least two thirds) in the world but they will follow
> >> >the events which will stimulate a magnetic dipole reversal or dipole
> >> >excursion event, not a rotational pole shift.
> >>
> >> Pray tell us, when will this happen? and what excuses will you have
> >> when it doesn't?
> >>
> >> (Don't email me. Make it public.)
> >
> >Sure, why not? Do you suppose that it something that should not be
> >made public? Believe me, I'm telling you the truth when I say that it
> >will be a very public event. You should be concerned with what you
> >could do to survive these coming events not with when they are going to
> >happen because it is certain that you will not survive them with the
> >present condition of your heart.
> >
> >I won't be making any excuses because it will happen. When? Soon.
> >Maybe not this year and maybe not this decade but soon. As soon as a
> >Coronal Mass Ejection of the right alignment and sufficient intensity
> >strikes the Earth's field. You want me to name a date when this will
> >occur? Sorry. I don't name dates. Why? Because I don't know the
> >date and I never have said that I do.
>
> That's what I like about doomsayers. They are always ducking and
> weaving, but eventually, when there's an earthquake, some bad weather,
> a volcano, or whatever, they can always claim "See, I told you so!"
> after the event.
>
> The reason I take that point is that you claim that "as soon as"
You are a nitwit. I've predicted an entire process. Instead of
displaying your angst about religion why don't you simply investigate
the model? There's plenty to investigate. There's lots of peer
reviewed papers and even a few books on Earth Expansion. I claim that
there is lots of evidence for the existence of electromagnetotoroidal
structures ranging from neutrons at the microdomain scale to ball
lightning at the beginning of the macrodomain and on through the EMTs
of comets, planets, stars, and stellar jet systems.
The problem is that I say the model as well as is the physics behind it
is apocalyptic. Do you wan't to reject the model because I claim it is
apocalyptic (or revelatory)? That is really the problem with you
fakes. You won't even look at the science behind it because you
believe that all knowledge must be subjectively generated whereas I
claim that true knowledge is revelatory. And if revelatory then that
implies a revealer Whom you insist does not exist because you have
enthroned not the truth in your heart but rather your fabrications and
pseudoknowledge. What do you care about where I got the model if it
works and is accurate and extends our comprehension of the universe?
But that is what it is with you, isn't it? The model is tainted with
religion and so you run like a scared rabbit. You should. The model
is real and the events which I have spoken of will take place. Similar
events have taken place in the past there is a universe full of
evidence to support that claim. You are just too gutless to take a
good long honest look at it.
And below I don't say that it will take place by 2013 but only that *I*
personally expect it to. But you are focused not upon the process of
which there is ubiquitous evidence of similar and previous occurances
but upon a date. I'm not ducking and weaving because I don't have
anything to duck or weave about. You want false prophets? The world
is full of them. You want false or pseudoknowledge? The world is full
of that also. You are past your ears in pseudoscience and you haven't
a clue.
But if you want true knowledge then you don't invent it out of your
head like is s.o.p. for the scientific community. You should consider
that knowledge (which is what science is all about) is either
intellectual fabrications of individuals in which case it is wholly
subjective or that it is apocalyptic or revealed and is therefore
objective. The distinguished philosopher of science Imre Lakatos once
stated that 'Scientists understand science about as well as fish
understand hydrodynamics'. You should spend a little time
investigating the importance of epistemology in the conduct of
legitimate science.
> > Personally, however, I expect
> >it within the next thirteen years which means it could start this month
> >or perhaps not until sometime in 2013. But it will come. But whenever
> >it happens it will be associated with an especially strong solar
> >maximum.
> >
> >Charles Cagle
>
> So I have to wait till 2013 to ask you why you got it wrong?. Fine.
> It'll wait. I have a long memory, and a big database of prophecies
> that don't happen.
Hey, if 2013 comes and goes without such events as I have described,
wonderful. That simply means that the Eternal God is being more
merciful. Who can tell but that this message might cause people to
repent so that He will delay the day of His fierce wrath.
Charles Cagle
C. Cagle
Wally Anglesea™ <wang...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Apr 2000 12:02:04 -0600, "Duane Morse"
> <Du...@computerroom.com> wrote:
>
> >Truth is truth. The fact of gravity doesn't depend on being published in
> >some journal.
>
> I thinnk that response speaks for itself. Your postulation is
> therefore probably without foundation.
Oh, there's some real wit...or at least half of some wit. Morse is an
idiot but you are not much better with your silly conclusion. Show us
how it is logically connected - your comment to his, that it.
Charles Cagle
George Tyrebyter
>
> .... Do you wan't to reject the model because I claim it is
> apocalyptic (or revelatory)?
Nah. Because it's nonsense.
--
George Tyrebyter
(who knows how to spell "want", and other grammatical things)
C. Cagle
<Scott....@louisville.edu> wrote:
> Duane Morse wrote:
> >
> > Truth is truth. The fact of gravity doesn't depend on being published in
> > some journal.
> > Maybe you should do a little of your own research and then criticize.
>
> This is simple so even you can probably get it. If you make a claim of
> scientific import, then it merits being checked by those who can, which is
> done by publishing the results.
>
> So, if you have something significant, publish it. Else, you are blowing
> smoke to continue to make the claims unchecked.
Morse is an idiot but you are simply being idiotic. Newton had quite
a bit to publish but refrained from publishing until pressed very hard
by his friends to do so. Would his method of calculus be any less
effective if he had failed to publish it? For you to whine at Morse
is silly because he's an illogical fool and if you cannot reject his
claims upon anything more substantial than whether or not he can back
it up with publications then you are a nitwit because there are
literally mountains of absolute bullshit which gets published in peer
reviewed journals every year. The ratio between meaningful
publications which extend the understanding of man to those which do
not is extreme.
The Earth has likely never has a major rotational axis shift but it has
had at least 171 magnetic dipole reversals since the period referred to
as the Jurassic.
If you are going to refute Morse at least use some common sense.
Charles Cagle (taking few prisoners)
Paul Schlyter
C. Cagle <sing...@telestream.com> wrote:
> In article <tj77fsgqcfvgpb24h...@news.ozemail.com.au>,
> Wally Anglesea>In article <tj77fsgqcfvgpb24h...@news.ozemail.com.au>,
>>>Wally Anglesea>In article <tj77fsgqcfvgpb24h...@news.ozemail.com.au>,
.....................
No you didn't -- you omitted the date of the event. Handwaving and
claiming that some vaguely specified event will happen in some
unspecified future is not a prediction.
.............
> The problem is that I say the model as well as is the physics behind it
> is apocalyptic. Do you wan't to reject the model because I claim it is
> apocalyptic (or revelatory)?
You're not the first person who've predicted the destruction of the
world based on the bible. Many others have done that before you.
Some were even brave enough to supply a date -- they were all wrong
and the world continued to exist after their predicted date of
destruction. You know this -- that's why you refuse to supply even
an approximate date to your prediction.
If you + your fellows could get your predictions right for a change
you would gain tremendeously in credibility....
> That is really the problem with you
> fakes. You won't even look at the science behind it because you
> believe that all knowledge must be subjectively generated whereas I
> claim that true knowledge is revelatory. And if revelatory then that
> implies a revealer Whom you insist does not exist because you have
> enthroned not the truth in your heart but rather your fabrications and
> pseudoknowledge. What do you care about where I got the model if it
> works and is accurate and extends our comprehension of the universe?
> But that is what it is with you, isn't it? The model is tainted with
> religion and so you run like a scared rabbit. You should. The model
> is real and the events which I have spoken of will take place.
> Similar events have taken place in the past
Where and when?
> there is a universe full of
> evidence to support that claim. You are just too gutless to take a
> good long honest look at it.
>
>
> And below I don't say that it will take place by 2013 but only that *I*
> personally expect it to.
See -- there you go weaseling again! We're not interested in your
personal expectations. And you admit yourself that your model isn't
accurate enough to provide even an approximate date of the event you
claim will happen. So no matter how long we wait and it doesn't
happen, you can always weasel out by saying "...it didn't happen
YET...", all the way until 5 billion years in the future when the Sun
becomes a red giant and life on Earth really is thoroughly destroyed.
> But if you want true knowledge then you don't invent it out of your
> head like is s.o.p. for the scientific community. You should consider
> that knowledge (which is what science is all about) is either
> intellectual fabrications of individuals in which case it is wholly
> subjective or that it is apocalyptic or revealed and is therefore
> objective.
But what if the revealer isn't objective? <g>
> The distinguished philosopher of science Imre Lakatos once
> stated that 'Scientists understand science about as well as fish
> understand hydrodynamics'. You should spend a little time
> investigating the importance of epistemology in the conduct of
> legitimate science.
There are many different bodies of revealed "knowledge" -- unfortunately
they disagree with one another. So which body of "revealed knowledge"
should we trust? And on what basis should we decide?
>> So I have to wait till 2013 to ask you why you got it wrong?. Fine.
>> It'll wait. I have a long memory, and a big database of prophecies
>> that don't happen.
>
> Hey, if 2013 comes and goes without such events as I have described,
> wonderful. That simply means that the Eternal God is being more
> merciful.
There you go weaseling out again ..... that rethorics may have
worked back in medieveal times, but it won't work today! Try
something different next time...
> Who can tell but that this message might cause people to repent so
> that He will delay the day of His fierce wrath.
People won't "repent" any more now than they did before. And I
predict that your predicted destruction will not happen in 2013
or before....
Paul Schlyter
C. Cagle <sing...@telestream.com> wrote:
> In article <tj77fsgqcfvgpb24h...@news.ozemail.com.au>,
> Wally Anglesea>In article <tj77fsgqcfvgpb24h...@news.ozemail.com.au>,
>>>Wally Anglesea>In article <tj77fsgqcfvgpb24h...@news.ozemail.com.au>,
.....................
No you didn't -- you omitted the date of the event. Handwaving and
claiming that some vaguely specified event will happen in some
unspecified future is not a prediction.
.............
> The problem is that I say the model as well as is the physics behind it
> is apocalyptic. Do you wan't to reject the model because I claim it is
> apocalyptic (or revelatory)?
You're not the first person who've predicted the destruction of the
world based on the bible. Many others have done that before you.
Some were even brave enough to supply a date -- they were all wrong
and the world continued to exist after their predicted date of
destruction. You know this -- that's why you refuse to supply even
an approximate date to your prediction.
If you + your fellows could get your predictions right for a change
you would gain tremendeously in credibility....
> That is really the problem with you
> fakes. You won't even look at the science behind it because you
> believe that all knowledge must be subjectively generated whereas I
> claim that true knowledge is revelatory. And if revelatory then that
> implies a revealer Whom you insist does not exist because you have
> enthroned not the truth in your heart but rather your fabrications and
> pseudoknowledge. What do you care about where I got the model if it
> works and is accurate and extends our comprehension of the universe?
> But that is what it is with you, isn't it? The model is tainted with
> religion and so you run like a scared rabbit. You should. The model
> is real and the events which I have spoken of will take place.
> Similar events have taken place in the past
Where and when?
> there is a universe full of
> evidence to support that claim. You are just too gutless to take a
> good long honest look at it.
>
>
> And below I don't say that it will take place by 2013 but only that *I*
> personally expect it to.
See -- there you go weaseling again! We're not interested in your
personal expectations. And you admit yourself that your model isn't
accurate enough to provide even an approximate date of the event you
claim will happen. So no matter how long we wait and it doesn't
happen, you can always weasel out by saying "...it didn't happen
YET...", all the way until 5 billion years in the future when the Sun
becomes a red giant and life on Earth really is thoroughly destroyed.
> But if you want true knowledge then you don't invent it out of your
> head like is s.o.p. for the scientific community. You should consider
> that knowledge (which is what science is all about) is either
> intellectual fabrications of individuals in which case it is wholly
> subjective or that it is apocalyptic or revealed and is therefore
> objective.
But what if the revealer isn't objective? <g>
> The distinguished philosopher of science Imre Lakatos once
> stated that 'Scientists understand science about as well as fish
> understand hydrodynamics'. You should spend a little time
> investigating the importance of epistemology in the conduct of
> legitimate science.
There are many different bodies of revealed "knowledge" -- unfortunately
they disagree with one another. So which body of "revealed knowledge"
should we trust? And on what basis should we decide?
>> So I have to wait till 2013 to ask you why you got it wrong?. Fine.
>> It'll wait. I have a long memory, and a big database of prophecies
>> that don't happen.
>
> Hey, if 2013 comes and goes without such events as I have described,
> wonderful. That simply means that the Eternal God is being more
> merciful.
There you go weaseling out again ..... that rethorics may have
worked back in medieveal times, but it won't work today! Try
something different next time...
> Who can tell but that this message might cause people to repent so
> that He will delay the day of His fierce wrath.
C. Cagle
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
In article <8d2sa2$u0$1...@merope.saaf.se>, Paul Schlyter
<pau...@saafNOSPAM.se> wrote:
> > You are a nitwit. I've predicted an entire process.
>
> No you didn't -- you omitted the date of the event. Handwaving and
> claiming that some vaguely specified event will happen in some
> unspecified future is not a prediction.
Sure it is. You just happen to be fool and have decided to define
prediction according to your own whim.
Scientists say if you smoke you are at risk to get cancer. Do they say
when? Hell no. But the warning is still there and people take it
seriously. I've never said that I know the date that it will begin to
take place but I have certainly outlined the physical processes and
have said that when the current density of the Earth's
electromagnetotoroid is sufficiently stimulated then a general current
vector rotation process will begin to ensue and I have outlined (in
many previous posts) a number of the details of the physics. That is
predictive physics, you raging fool.
>
> > The problem is that I say the model as well as is the physics behind it
> > is apocalyptic. Do you wan't to reject the model because I claim it is
> > apocalyptic (or revelatory)?
>
> You're not the first person who've predicted the destruction of the
> world based on the bible.
Pay attention nitwit. I never stated that it was the 'destruction of
the world'. It will likely be your destruction but the world, the
Earth, will still be here afterwords albeit with not nearly so many
people.
Many others have done that before you.
> Some were even brave enough to supply a date -- they were all wrong
> and the world continued to exist after their predicted date of
> destruction. You know this -- that's why you refuse to supply even
> an approximate date to your prediction.
Bravery had nothing to do with it. They were misled fools, much like
yourself. Tell me, fool, what good would a date be to you? You don't
believe that it will happen anyway so what difference does it make to
you? You want to wait until the day before so you can repent? Sorry
it doesn't work that way, never has. Do you think this warning comes
to warn the lost like you? Not so, but rather to warn the righteous
that the day of their redemption is near.
> If you + your fellows could get your predictions right for a change
> you would gain tremendeously in credibility....
There not my fellows, idiot. They're your fellows.
>
> > That is really the problem with you
> > fakes. You won't even look at the science behind it because you
> > believe that all knowledge must be subjectively generated whereas I
> > claim that true knowledge is revelatory. And if revelatory then that
> > implies a revealer Whom you insist does not exist because you have
> > enthroned not the truth in your heart but rather your fabrications and
> > pseudoknowledge. What do you care about where I got the model if it
> > works and is accurate and extends our comprehension of the universe?
> > But that is what it is with you, isn't it? The model is tainted with
> > religion and so you run like a scared rabbit. You should. The model
> > is real and the events which I have spoken of will take place.
> > Similar events have taken place in the past
>
> Where and when?
You should write to Willaim Topping and get a copy of his paper
"Cosmogenic radiocarbon as a source of error at Paleo-Indian sites and
evidence for a giant solar flare in prehistory." William Topping Rt. 2,
Box 2779, Baldwin, Michigan 49304 USA
He writes of a giant solar flare which according to radiocarbon dating
of the site occurred about 2800 years ago. He believes the event took
place as much as 10,000 years before that. He writes: 'At the Gainey
Paleo-Indian site in the central part of lower Michigan, charcoal
yielded a radiocarbon date of 2880 +/- 175 bp2 while a
thermoluminesence date from this site was 12,360 +/- 1240 bp.'
indicating that he placed a greater reliability upon the
thermoluminescence date than upon the radiocarbon dating and has
supposed that the radiocarbon dating for the whole surrounding region
was reset by about 10,000 years since they all yield similar
radiocarbon dates. He has found proton tracks through chert flakes
(produced from resharpening episodes of various tools, points, etc.)
with a density of about 70,000 tracks per cm^2. This indicates a
giant solar flare sometime between 2800 bp and 12800 bp penetrated the
atmosphere right down to ground level. The straightforward implication
is that the dipole field had to be down at the time the flare event
impacted the Sun side of the biosphere.
Besides the dipole field being down and exposing the biosphere to the
effects of particulate radiation (which would not be deflected by the
dipole field) there are a number of other factors to consider.
Planetary expansion while laughed away by subductionists who
hysterically cover their eyes and ears from such suggestions (lest it
do violence to their favorite fantasies) nevertheless is not without
the support of data. James Maxlow, a few years ago, successfully
defended his Master's thesis which supported planetary expansion based
upon the relative chronology of sea floor spreading zones.
Most Earth Expansion (EE) supporters have supposed that the Earth has
been expanding continuously. The magnetic stripes on the sea floor
expansion zones, however, can be interpreted to show a one-to-one
correlation between sea floor expansion and dipole reversal or dipole
excursion events.
>
> > there is a universe full of
> > evidence to support that claim. You are just too gutless to take a
> > good long honest look at it.
> >
> >
> > And below I don't say that it will take place by 2013 but only that *I*
> > personally expect it to.
>
> See -- there you go weaseling again! We're not interested in your
> personal expectations. And you admit yourself that your model isn't
> accurate enough to provide even an approximate date of the event you
> claim will happen.
So what? I predict you are going to die and you will find that my
prediction is going to be 100 percent accurate but when you will die is
another question. You could die later this afternoon or maybe not
until you and your loved ones are shreiking in terror at the
catastrophic events which take you all down to your grave.
So no matter how long we wait and it doesn't
> happen, you can always weasel out by saying "...it didn't happen
> YET...", all the way until 5 billion years in the future when the Sun
> becomes a red giant and life on Earth really is thoroughly destroyed.
Nitwit, the Sun isn't going to become a red giant. If physicists
comprehended the process of nuclear fusion they would figure that out
but they don't so they haven't and you are so dependent upon their
pseudoscience that you naturally believe all the nonsense they have
written about stellar physics.
If I had stated that I would predict the date and then refused to
predict the date then I would be weaseling you logically challanged
fool. But I never have made such a statement. So you are a fool.
> > But if you want true knowledge then you don't invent it out of your
> > head like is s.o.p. for the scientific community. You should consider
> > that knowledge (which is what science is all about) is either
> > intellectual fabrications of individuals in which case it is wholly
> > subjective or that it is apocalyptic or revealed and is therefore
> > objective.
>
> But what if the revealer isn't objective? <g>
What if you weren't going to be going down to your grave with all of
your loved ones in utter terror? But you are so what is the point of
your nonsensical speculation? You don't know God so you ignorantly
ask such questions.
> > The distinguished philosopher of science Imre Lakatos once
> > stated that 'Scientists understand science about as well as fish
> > understand hydrodynamics'. You should spend a little time
> > investigating the importance of epistemology in the conduct of
> > legitimate science.
>
> There are many different bodies of revealed "knowledge" -- unfortunately
> they disagree with one another. So which body of "revealed knowledge"
> should we trust? And on what basis should we decide?
Are you asking for the thing that could give you salvation? Do you
truly want to know how to decide or are you simply asking for the sake
of rhetoric?
> >> So I have to wait till 2013 to ask you why you got it wrong?. Fine.
> >> It'll wait. I have a long memory, and a big database of prophecies
> >> that don't happen.
> >
> > Hey, if 2013 comes and goes without such events as I have described,
> > wonderful. That simply means that the Eternal God is being more
> > merciful.
>
> There you go weaseling out again ..... that rethorics may have
> worked back in medieveal times, but it won't work today! Try
> something different next time...
No, fool. Since I never promised to give a date I'm not weaseling.
Why would I give a date? I don't know the date. Maybe some day I
will, but I may not know it but just a few days in advance of when
you'll know it. But I know that it is near. I just don't know how
near. How much worse can it get on the Earth? How many more millions
of unborn babies will man send to the incinerators. It isn't getting
any better but only worse and many righteous men and women are vexed to
their souls because of the godlessness and profane things that are
going on in the world
> > Who can tell but that this message might cause people to repent so
> > that He will delay the day of His fierce wrath.
>
> People won't "repent" any more now than they did before.
Some will but most will not.
> And I predict that your predicted destruction will not happen in 2013
> or before....
Your words are as impotent as your intellect.
Charles Cagle
J. Scott Miller
When you make sweeping generalizations like you have you simply weaken your
argument.
Define "mountains". And is the definition of whether this mountain "of
absolute bullshit which gets published in peer reviewed journals" such only
because you don't agree with what was published? Specifically, is it bullshit
simply because it runs counter to your own pet theory?
Pole shifting is probably a dead horse simply because of the moderating
influence of the Earth's Moon. Recent computer simulations seem to bear that
out. Mr. Morse has made a claim and I have challenged him on it. Since
sarcasm doesn't translate well into type very well, you missed the point.
As to Newton, if his work had not been forced into the light of day, then it
might have been discovered among his papers after he died, assuming they were
not tossed out, or they might have been rediscovered by someone else more
willing to publish the results. So, my suggestion to Mr. Morse is a practical
one. If he thinks he has something substantial, he shouldn't hide it under a
bushel basket, but let it shine forth. And one way to do that is to publish
the results and have others look at the evidence he presents.
C. Cagle
<Scott....@louisville.edu> wrote:
Only in your opinion.
> Define "mountains". And is the definition of whether this mountain "of
> absolute bullshit which gets published in peer reviewed journals" such only
> because you don't agree with what was published? Specifically, is it bullshit
> simply because it runs counter to your own pet theory?
I don't have a pet theory. I have a comprehensive model. You probably
see no distinction and I wouldn't expect you to without some training
in epistemology and in the modeling itself. But those 'mountains' of
bullshit I refer to are open to anyone. For example, just go to
http://xxx.lanl.gov and start down loading papers on nearly any
subject. A great deal of modern speculation which literally
overwhelms the content of journals dedicated to astronomy,
astrophysics, and cosmology all have a weakness. They all believe that
nuclear fusion occurs because of dynamic collisional relationships
between interacting nuclei. All of stellar physics relies upon this
interpretation. My research has shown that fusion does not work the
way that millions of people think that it does. Stars don't work the
way that people have been taught that they work. Planets are not
formed by the processes which are taught in every university on the
Earth. All of fusion theory depends upon the conceptualization of how
fundamental charged particles interact. But hell, we have top
researchers who have actually had the nuts to step up to the plate and
confess that they do not understand superconduction. That they don't
understand Cooper Pairing. They once thought that they did but now
they know that they don't.
The BCS theory itself was considered wrong by experts in the field
before its formulators got the Nobel Prize in 1972. Here's several
quotes from Science News 28 Mar 1970 pg 313: "Dr. Bernd T. Matthias (of
UCSD and Bell Labs) spent years giving experimental demonstrations of
superconductivity in metals where the BCS theory said it should not
be."..."Of the theory Dr. Matthias says, 'That theory has been so
consistent in predicting the wrong things that I never paid any
attention to it.' " (These quotes were made two years before the Nobel
was awarded for the theory to Bardeen, Cooper and Schreiffer).
After the award there were still articles supported by experimental
data which appeared saying things like "Superconduction Theory Askew"
but they were generally ignored and the BCS theory was taught as the
gospel for at least the next 15 years. The reason why this happened is
an open indictment to the scientific community who stood by and let bad
science go undisputed just because a Nobel prize had been awarded for
it.
About 1995, top people in the field like Robert Dynes at UCSD started
stepping forward and admitting that they don't know what is causing
superconductivity. These quotes from Discover Magazine: "We don't know
what's causing superconductivity," he says. "At least I don't. Some of
these people think they do. No theory has comfortably described all
these experiments. I'll probably offend a lot of my friends with that
statement. But all the cards haven't fallen into place."
"Dynes also says that more is at stake here than figuring out how
superconductors work. "The thing that theorists like Phil and David
Pines and--the list just goes on as long as your arm--the thing that's
got them excited, and that causes all the strife, is the underlying
belief that we're entering a new era in our understanding of electrons.
It's a much, much broader problem. I think people really smell a new
era."
The confusion over superconductivity, says Dynes, betrays a serious gap
in physicists' understanding of the most basic properties of matter."
<end quotes from Discover>.
Now that is just in the field of superconductivity. Do you have any
idea how many thousands of papers have been written all referencing the
BCS theory? That is just the foothills to the mountains of bullshit
that have been through the peer review process.
But the fact that Dynes and a few others recognize that the problems go
a lot deeper than simply superconduction, that it pierces to the heart
of the fundamental interactive properties of charged particles is a
step in the right direction.
And I'm presenting a new physics. Not some made up bullshit but a
physics with which the data is consistent. A predictive physics. In
fact, the whole universe is consistent with it from the interaction of
fundamental charged particles to the nature of charge and gravity. The
reality is that this new physics is apocalyptic in nature and it
predicts processes and dynamics that scientists are standing around
scratching their heads over because they can't figure them out using
the b.s. physics that their education has saddled them with. This new
physics reveals nature's process for the non conservative generation of
mass, it reveals the nature of charge, the nature of gravity, the
interaction of elementary charged particles, it discloses a previously
unknown rotational couple which is related to the generation of mass
and much much more. And it predicts or teaches one the fundamental
principles of a working nuclear fusion reactor.
> Pole shifting is probably a dead horse simply because of the moderating
> influence of the Earth's Moon. Recent computer simulations seem to bear that
> out. Mr. Morse has made a claim and I have challenged him on it. Since
> sarcasm doesn't translate well into type very well, you missed the point.
I must have. But Morse is a consummate fool. He thinks that great
cataclysms are on the way and he's right about that but he's up past
his eyeballs in bullshit when it comes to describing or comprehending
the processes. So I consider him a wacko just as others must consider
me. The difference is that I know the weaknesses of modern science.
Morse has nothing but hand and arm waving and in that he doesn't differ
a whole hell of a lot from the nitwits who are out there preaching the
utter fallacious bullshit of planetary system formation by accretion or
the whole gamut of bullshit surrounding all of the current wisdom with
respect to stellar physics.
The idiots who believe that planets generate their own magnetic fields
by internal motions of core materials are forced to cobble up a new
damn pathological liar's story for just about every one we've found in
the solar system. It has never occurred to these so-called experts
that there is an underlying structure which I have named an
electromagnetotoroid (EMT) which when it is in the toroidal current
mode produces the planets's (or star's) dipole magnetic field and which
when it is in the poloidal current mode generates mass in the form of
neutrons in the core. The EMT of a planet precedes the generation of
the planet and is the functional generator of the mass which will
become a planet. They think planets accrete out of dust clouds and so
when they see dust clouds they jump up and down and say 'See, we were
right! There's the birthplace of stars and planets'. And they have the
guts to call such tripe 'science'. The only 'science' that such
nitwits have been involved in is the generation and use of the advanced
technology which has been able to capture 'mountains' of data. My hat
is off to them for that but then the idiots think that they comprehend
the meaning of the data within the framework of their false cosmology.
The data is good, it is wonderful and I thank them for it because each
new piece only reifies the validity of the model I have been
presenting.
There have been literally tens of thousands of papers written on the
subject of gravity and none of these so-called mathematical physicists
have to first damn clue as to what a gravitational field really is.
This apocalyptic model is explicit about the nature of both charge and
of gravity and ties them together perfectly, seamlessly. Just the tons
of bullshit published on gravity alone is one of those 'mountains' I
was referring to.
> As to Newton, if his work had not been forced into the light of day, then it
> might have been discovered among his papers after he died, assuming they were
> not tossed out, or they might have been rediscovered by someone else more
> willing to publish the results. So, my suggestion to Mr. Morse is a practical
> one. If he thinks he has something substantial, he shouldn't hide it under a
> bushel basket, but let it shine forth. And one way to do that is to publish
> the results and have others look at the evidence he presents.
And mine? Should I publish mine using the same logic? So, tell me,
genius, who is a fit peer reviewer for a model that overthrows almost
everything the normal reviewers are intellectually locked down onto?
You think that these sons of bitches have the personal integrity to
rationally evaluate that which overthrows their whole life's belief
system? We aren't talking a simple change from geocentricism to
heliocentricism here but rather a completely new conceptualization of
the nature and dynamics of charged particles.
You know, I once met a Mormon fellow. After several meeting with this
guy in which I brought him detail after detail which demonstrated that
his church was a masterful con he finally confessed that he was forced
to agree with me (because of all of the evidence that I presented and
which showed him how the LDS church violated major tenets of the
teachings of Messiah) and how they had lied and connived and altered
records. There you have it. After careful consideration he agreed
that the 'Church' was not true. He came to that understanding on his
own when presented with the evidence. Then I asked him what he was
going to do about it. He spread his hands in despair and like a
trapped animal said "I can't leave the church, all of my family belongs
to it." "It would tear my family apart if I left". The reality was
that living his life with integrity would have cost him all that he
held dear. The profound fact was that this demonstrated that he did
not hold the 'truth' dear. Do you think that the church of modern
physics has less of a hold on peer reviewers than the LDS church had on
that fellow? You want to know why the LORD is shortly bringing His
wrath upon the Earth? Because men of integrity are disappearing from
the Earth; people who care about the 'truth' are ostracized because
they will not bend to the falsehood that is presented to them. What
hope does a man have to raise his children up in this society and
consider that they shall remain righteous?
Charles Cagle
J. Scott Miller
No, I think that if you cannot speak in specifics but just make a grand
generalization that the argument is weak. All I need is one good counter
example and the argument is weakened.
>
> > Define "mountains". And is the definition of whether this mountain "of
> > absolute bullshit which gets published in peer reviewed journals" such only
> > because you don't agree with what was published? Specifically, is it
> > bullshit simply because it runs counter to your own pet theory?
>
> I don't have a pet theory. I have a comprehensive model.
A model leads to theory development. That you have one makes it your pet one.
> You probably see no distinction and I wouldn't expect you to without some
> training in epistemology and in the modeling itself. But those 'mountains' of
> bullshit I refer to are open to anyone. For example, just go to
> http://xxx.lanl.gov and start down loading papers on nearly any
> subject.
Already have it book marked, but thanks anyway.
> A great deal of modern speculation which literally
> overwhelms the content of journals dedicated to astronomy,
> astrophysics, and cosmology all have a weakness. They all believe that
> nuclear fusion occurs because of dynamic collisional relationships
> between interacting nuclei. All of stellar physics relies upon this
> interpretation. My research has shown that fusion does not work the
> way that millions of people think that it does.
So the whole scientific world is dillusional. Okay. And you have a nuclear
reactor with which you can prove this?
> Stars don't work the way that people have been taught that they work. Planets
> are not formed by the processes which are taught in every university on the
> Earth.
Yep, those disks of gas seen around newly forming stars in the Orion nebula
are probably not going to gravitational collect together and form planets.
Damn gravity, such a nuisance.
> All of fusion theory depends upon the conceptualization of how
> fundamental charged particles interact.
Damn the experimental evidence. It means nothing.
> But hell, we have top researchers who have actually had the nuts to step up to
> the plate and confess that they do not understand superconduction. That they
> don't understand Cooper Pairing. They once thought that they did but now
> they know that they don't.
There are those sweeping generalizations again. Who has stepped up? When did
they say the things you indicate? Was it written in a paper, discussed on
Letterman, banged to death on Jerry (sp?) Springer? And just because they
don't that means you are right?
No you are not, as you claim below that no one is capable of dealing with it.
> Not some made up bullshit but a physics with which the data is consistent.
But you won't publish. How is one to judge?
> A predictive physics. In fact, the whole universe is consistent with it from
> the interaction of fundamental charged particles to the nature of charge and
> gravity. The reality is that this new physics is apocalyptic in nature and it
> predicts processes and dynamics that scientists are standing around
> scratching their heads over because they can't figure them out using
> the b.s. physics that their education has saddled them with. This new
> physics reveals nature's process for the non conservative generation of
> mass, it reveals the nature of charge, the nature of gravity, the
> interaction of elementary charged particles, it discloses a previously
> unknown rotational couple which is related to the generation of mass
> and much much more. And it predicts or teaches one the fundamental
> principles of a working nuclear fusion reactor.
Then by all means build one. Or publish the results so someone else can.
But you cannot mention a single one nor point out its flaws, other than it
runs counter to your own.
>
> > As to Newton, if his work had not been forced into the light of day, then it
> > might have been discovered among his papers after he died, assuming they were
> > not tossed out, or they might have been rediscovered by someone else more
> > willing to publish the results. So, my suggestion to Mr. Morse is a
> > practical one. If he thinks he has something substantial, he shouldn't hide
> > it under a bushel basket, but let it shine forth. And one way to do that is
> > to publish the results and have others look at the evidence he presents.
>
> And mine? Should I publish mine using the same logic? So, tell me,
> genius, who is a fit peer reviewer for a model that overthrows almost
> everything the normal reviewers are intellectually locked down onto?
So, rather than face the possibility you are wrong, you simply state that no
one could objectively review this material.
How about bits and pieces. Rather than overturn all of physics, just a couple
of areas. Superconductivity, nuclear physics, take your choice. If the sum
is good, the pieces in which it operates should be just as good.
Make some predictions and publish those so that others can see your genius at
work. Heck, they may even try to create the experiments necessary to prove or
disprove the predictions.
Or, one better. You do the experiment and publish the results, clearly
demonstrating the superiority of your explanation over conventional physics.
> You think that these sons of bitches have the personal integrity to
> rationally evaluate that which overthrows their whole life's belief
> system?
Yes, I do. Those I have had the opportunity to meet and to work with have
shown quite a bit of integrity. And, in a couple of cases where they were
wrong, to admit it.
> We aren't talking a simple change from geocentricism to
> heliocentricism here but rather a completely new conceptualization of
> the nature and dynamics of charged particles.
Then experiment, publish the results and show how your idea explains the
results better than can be done conventionally.
Robert Narsavage
> Robert Narsavage <AeroD...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> >
> > ------=_NextPart_000_001F_01BFA3BB.791CB6C0
> > Content-Type: text/plain;
> > charset="iso-8859-1"
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> >
> > You are, by reading your posts, very knowledgeable in your chosen field. =
> > I am sure no one here will dispute that. But you are obviously a =
> > creationist [ or, if you prefer, a follower of creationism ].
>
>
> > While I =
> > well-educated in the geosciences, I support your right to your opinions
>
> Because with your narrow vision of the universe you cannot see how God
> and science are compatible you have confirmed that you comprehend
> neither science nor God.
>
>
> =
> > not the one to post such viewpoints ].
>
>
> =20
> > However, your arm-waving and doomsday-predicting is becoming quite =
> > tiresome.
>
> Don't read it then. Pretty simple solution, eh? Too complex for that
> evolved brain of yours? Oh, and learn to post correctly. Not only
> are your opinions vapid but your posts are all screwed up. Fix it.
> Learn to turn off the HTML posting of your browser. You look like an
> idiot.
>
>
> > posting the warning,=20
> > " Great storms of rain, thunder, and hail will destroy crops and kill =
> > people this year in the Midwest U.S. " Of course this will happen. We =
> > all know this will occur. Even my 10-year-old niece could predict this =
> > with a fair amount of certainty. =20
> > What my meandering fingers are trying to type here, is that all of your =
> > [ and others' ] bible-waving, God-fearing, repent-or-else predictions =
> > read like some cartoonish nonsense every time a prediction comes and =
> > goes - without anything happening.
>
> predicted event came and went without the event taking place? Is that
> what you meant to say but were too incompetent to say it?
>
> Point out a single event that I have predicted which has not taken
> place at the exact time I said it would. Of course, I've never made
> any such predictions, you raging fool, so how the hell could they be
> wrong?
>
>
> > the calendar only ]; the " forgotten Leap Day " this past February; the =
> > unprecedented solar winds just within the past week; the grouping of the =
> > four planets just within the past few days. All occurrences which you =
> > and others have forecasted to bring the entire world to its collective =
> > knees, brought us more laughs and snickers, and brought you and your =
> > fellow creationists more ridicule and discredit.
>
> just be a fool if you prefer but you are one or the other or both). I
> never said that any of this would bring the world to its collective
> knees. You are just as much of a nitwit as those others with whom you
> would like to group me. But you don't have the sense to figure out
> what I really said but must mix it in with what others have stated and
> then you moronically label it with my name on it. Get a grip.
>
>
> > the end of this year, the Inca calendar forecast in late 2002, and your =
> > new prediction of an asteroidal cataclysm probably by the year 2013.
>
> do I mention an asteroid? You really are a fool.
>
> > too, know it will. It has happened before, several times, in our =
> > +4.5b-year existence. I know that the great BIG ONE will occur in =
> > California. It has happened before, several times. I know that there =
> > have been planetary alignments and solar eclipses and visits by comets. =
> > They have happened before. And I don't need a dot-com to tell you this.
Robert Narsavage
> Wally AngleseaT <wang...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 11 Apr 2000 15:34:36 GMT, "C. Cagle" <sing...@telestream.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >In article <2u06fss2og0ss9vqr...@news.ozemail.com.au>,
Robert Narsavage
Robert Narsavage
> <Scott....@louisville.edu> wrote:
>
> > Paul, pull your fangs in. Mr. Cagel did not claim anything about alignments
> > causing problems. His concern is with coronal mass ejections. Unfounded yes,
> > but not in line with the original poster of this thread. In fact, he earlier
> > in this thread pointed out to the offending individual the errors of his ways.
> >
> > Now, if you want to berate him on his ideas of coronal mass ejections
> > affecting the Earth's magnetic field to the extent of causing problems, go
> > ahead. And yes, he does try to tie that to biblical end of the world hooey.
> > But don't confuse him with the planet alignment ilk. His is a different world
> > ending scenario.
> >
> > Paul Schlyter wrote:
>
> candy of pseudoscience all of his life? His comments are the work and
> mark of a nitwit who does not bother to read before he runs his mouth,
> much like your own.
>
> And what makes you think that my 'concern' with regard to Coronal Mass
> Ejections is unfounded? Because an arrogant incompetent ass like you
> says so? You don't have a clue as to the mechanisms which have to do
> with the generation of planetary or stellar magnetic fields and you
> witless ass, neither do you comprehend the mechanisms of magnetic
> dipole reversal events but you are willing to stand up and bray and
> bray about things concerning which you are completely ignorant. Tell
> us why that is?
>
> And just because you think that it is hooey has no bearing on whether
> or not it is. A host of prophets have all prophesied cataclysmic
> geological events but you have become so adulterated with nonsense
> (sophisticated) that you refuse to even consider if knowledge can be
> apocalyptic. And why is that? Perhaps it is because you have elevated
> subjectivism to its highest limits and have rejected the idea that
> there can be any knowledge at all which is objective and revelatory.
> Let a man dream up any pseudoscientific story and fools like you lap it
> up but let the Word of the LORD be revealed and you scitter away from
> it like cockroaches from a flashlight.
>
> Charles Cagle (not in a prisoner taking mode)
Robert Narsavage
> <pau...@saafNOSPAM.se> wrote:
>
>
> > > Sure, why not? Do you suppose that it something that should not be
> > > made public? Believe me, I'm telling you the truth when I say that it
> > > will be a very public event.
>
> > That's a trivial truth -- did anyone ever claim that the physical
> > destruction of the world and killing of everyone would be a *private*
> > event?
>
> stated that everyone would be killed? That's why I don't like to take
> prisoners with people like you. You make crap up and then you act like
> I wrote something which I did not. You do science like this? Get a
> grip.
>
> > > You should be concerned with what you could do to survive these
> > > coming events
> >
> > Wouldn't it be quite pointless to try to survive an event which would
> > kill everyone? <g>
>
> and work out your perverted logic upon what? - upon your own fabricated
> nonsense.
>
> >
> > > not with when they are going to happen because it is certain that
> > > you will not survive them with the present condition of your heart.
> >
> > If it happened, you wouldn't survive it either. BTW you probably
> > would commit suicide before you believed it would happen. Remember
> > Jim Jones, David Koresh, Heaven's Gate, Uganda, .... it's guys like
> > you who do such things.
>
> face the future kill themselves.
> > > I won't be making any excuses because it will happen. When? Soon.
> > > Maybe not this year and maybe not this decade but soon. As soon as a
> > > Coronal Mass Ejection of the right alignment and sufficient intensity
> > > strikes the Earth's field.
> >
> > If so, why didn't this already happen?
>
> electromagnetotoroid has gone through at least 171 dipole reversal or
> dipole excursion events since the period referred to as the Jurassic.
> These events are the single most devastating events to occur to the
> biosphere.
>
> > There have been a very large number of "alignments" of the planets
> > during the lifetime of the Earth, and even during the history of
> > mankind. If these "alignments" are as dangerous as you claim, why
> > didn't one of them already wipe out all life on Earth?
>
> planets would cause anything.
>
> >
> > > You want me to name a date when this will occur? Sorry. I don't name
> > > dates. Why? Because I don't know the date and I never have said that
> > > I do.
> >
> > If you don't know the date, why do you predict the event? As far as you
> > know, it may take five billion years before it happens - right?
>
> comprehend the physics? Or to point to data which indicates that
> similar events have occurred again and again. Gad, do you just sit
> around with your head up your ....? Didn't they offer any courses on
> logic where you went to school?
>
>
> > > Personally, however, I expect it within the next thirteen years which
> > > means it could start this month or perhaps not until sometime in 2013.
> >
> > Which brings us to the second question, which you did ignore:
> >
> > # Pray tell us, when will this happen? AND WHAT EXCUSES WILL YOU HAVE
> > # WHEN IT DOESN'T?
>
> raging loon, are you unable to read English? I said that *I*
> personally expect it sometime in the next thirteen years. Did I say
> that it would take place in the next thirteen years? No, I did not.
> But are you certain that it will not? You are planning like you will
> be around to mock me. I predict neither you nor any of your loved ones
> who are as stiffnecked as you are will survive but will go down to your
> graves in the greatest of terror.
>
> <snip nitwit comments>
>
> > The other day I received an email from a lady who asked me about my
> > opinion about the upcoming planetary "alignment". I told her nothing
> > particular would happen, and pointed her to some web sites explaining
> > the facts about this. Which made her feel calmer, but her real
> > concern was her husband, who was into some religious cult and who was
> > giving up everything because of this upcoming planetary alignment....
> >
> > It's at moments like this one realizes that guys like you aren't
> > merely harmless clowns, but that you actually do some real harm when
> > spreading these unfounded rumors.
>
> you are crying peace peace and are supposing that the world will go on
> day by day just as you imagine that it has for untold ages. The
> reality is that the terror and calamity of it will overtake you so
> suddenly that you will have no time to repent because you will be
> unable to find any place in your heart. You mock the Word of God but
> the LORD will have you in derision and shall laugh at your calamity.
>
> Prov 1:22-29 "How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and
> the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?
> Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I
> will make known my words unto you. Because I have called, and ye
> refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded; But ye have
> set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof: I also will
> laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh; When your
> fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind;
> when distress and anguish cometh upon you. Then shall they call upon
> me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not
> find me: For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of
> the LORD:"
Robert Narsavage
> Wally AngleseaT <wang...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 11 Apr 2000 12:02:04 -0600, "Duane Morse"
> >
> > >Truth is truth. The fact of gravity doesn't depend on being published in
> > >some journal.
> >
> > therefore probably without foundation.
>
Robert Narsavage
> <Scott....@louisville.edu> wrote:
>
> > Duane Morse wrote:
> > >
> > > Truth is truth. The fact of gravity doesn't depend on being published in
> > > some journal.
> >
> > This is simple so even you can probably get it. If you make a claim of
> > scientific import, then it merits being checked by those who can, which is
> > done by publishing the results.
> >
> > So, if you have something significant, publish it. Else, you are blowing
> > smoke to continue to make the claims unchecked.
>
> Morse is an idiot but you are simply being idiotic. Newton had quite
> a bit to publish but refrained from publishing until pressed very hard
> by his friends to do so. Would his method of calculus be any less
> effective if he had failed to publish it? For you to whine at Morse
> is silly because he's an illogical fool and if you cannot reject his
> claims upon anything more substantial than whether or not he can back
> it up with publications then you are a nitwit because there are
> literally mountains of absolute bullshit which gets published in peer
> reviewed journals every year. The ratio between meaningful
> publications which extend the understanding of man to those which do
> not is extreme.
>
> The Earth has likely never has a major rotational axis shift but it has
> as the Jurassic.
>
Robert Narsavage
Robert Narsavage
Colin Langford
> that there is an underlying structure which I have named an
> electromagnetotoroid (EMT) which when it is in the toroidal current
> mode produces the planets's (or star's) dipole magnetic field and which
> when it is in the poloidal current mode generates mass in the form of
> neutrons in the core. The EMT of a planet precedes the generation of
> the planet and is the functional generator of the mass which will
> become a planet.
How does your electromagnetotoroid (EMT) work exactly? Before I guess at the
what I think your theory is above I would like some clarification on the
process.
Where could an electromagnetotoroid (EMT) form?
How would the pressurized liquid vs the pressurized solid cores of planets
affect this electromagnetotoroid (EMT)?
Colin
C. Cagle
<c...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
> > It has never occurred to these so-called experts
> > that there is an underlying structure which I have named an
> > electromagnetotoroid (EMT) which when it is in the toroidal current
> > mode produces the planets's (or star's) dipole magnetic field and which
> > when it is in the poloidal current mode generates mass in the form of
> > neutrons in the core. The EMT of a planet precedes the generation of
> > the planet and is the functional generator of the mass which will
> > become a planet.
>
> How does your electromagnetotoroid (EMT) work exactly? Before I guess at the
> what I think your theory is above I would like some clarification on the
> process.
By that comment it is apparent that you already have something in mind.
And experience shows us that when we have something in mind that we
tend to evaluate things in such a manner so as to maintain the thing
that we already have in mind. Get rid of what you think it might be so
as to make room for what it really is.
> Where could an electromagnetotoroid (EMT) form?
You should ask how. They form in any plasma that has a fast rise in
current density.
Del X J = partial P/partial t where J is current density vector, P is
Poynting vector which is the same thing as A(sub d) which is
electromagnetic vector potential density and t is time.
There's another form for this equation using magnetic flux density as
well.
This expresses a rotational tendency for the current density vector
when there is a fast rise in either the currrent density or the
magnetic flux density both of which are related to a rise in the
electromagnetic vector potential density.
For a cross section of a current which experiences a fast rise in
current density which occurs if the current path is distorted by, say,
a magnetic field, the current vector would rotate pi/2 radians
everywhere in the cross section creating a current loop whose poloidal
axis would be orthogonal to the original axial current vector. Such a
loop is typically rapidly expansive and itself experiences a fast rise
in the current density in the loop which can drive it to a general pi/2
radian current vector rotation throughout the ring. This converts the
ring from the toroidal current mode to the poloidal current mode and no
dipole field exists.
> How would the pressurized liquid vs the pressurized solid cores of planets
> affect this electromagnetotoroid (EMT)?
Good question! A normal plasma state EMT oscillates between the two
modes of toroidal current (magnetic dipole) and poloidal current
(electric dipole mode) at a characteristic frequency related to its
size. The Sun's EMT oscillates from mode to mode at approximately 5.5
year intervals. Ball lightning can oscillate at audible frequencies to
produce a loud humming.
As an EMT produces mass which extends outward, which is not completely
ionized, hysteresis can prevent a mode change by slowing down the rate
of the rise of the current density or flux density. An impact from
another EMT such as a Coronal Mass Ejection can drive the current
density in the Earth's EMT up past the critical level and stimulate a
mode change. So, an EMT which generates the mass of a planet becomes,
in a manner of speaking, captured by that mass or is held captive by it
and it typically can only undergo a mode change if strongly stimulated
by an external field.
Charles Cagle
Mike Williams
Chinese explanation for earthquakes, I think.
P.S. I'm not technically proficient enough to figure out which newsgroup you
originally posted to, so I am allowing the cross-post. But I would hope that
somehow this junk from the latest net-kook can be kept at its original
location, which I doubt was sci.geo.earthquakes which is the one I
read..............Good luck, though. They usually just run their course and
recede into the miasma from whence they came.
--
Michael Williams
Arroyo Grande, CA USA
"Wally AngleseaT" <wang...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:vp0ifscen4ek9p8bk...@news.ozemail.com.au...
> On Wed, 12 Apr 2000 18:46:45 GMT, "C. Cagle" <sing...@telestream.com>
> wrote:
>
> <SNIP of nutty rant>
> >
> >The problem is that I say the model as well as is the physics behind it
> >is apocalyptic. Do you wan't to reject the model because I claim it is
> >apocalyptic (or revelatory)?
>
> Nope. I dismiss it because you are a nut that seems to want to link
> his interpretation of solar physics to a preconcieved notion that will
> even *be* an apocalypse.
>
>
> >That is really the problem with you
> >fakes. You won't even look at the science behind it because you
> >believe that all knowledge must be subjectively generated whereas I
> >claim that true knowledge is revelatory. And if revelatory then that
> >implies a revealer Whom you insist does not exist because you have
> >enthroned not the truth in your heart but rather your fabrications and
> >pseudoknowledge. What do you care about where I got the model if it
> >works and is accurate and extends our comprehension of the universe?
> >But that is what it is with you, isn't it? The model is tainted with
> >religion and so you run like a scared rabbit. You should. The model
> >is real and the events which I have spoken of will take place.
>
> ...... but I just cannot say when, because to do so would mean I have
> to put a testable stake in the ground, which means it might get found
> out that I'm talking hogwash.
>
>
>
> > Similar
> >events have taken place in the past there is a universe full of
> >evidence to support that claim. You are just too gutless to take a
> >good long honest look at it.
> >
> >
> >And below I don't say that it will take place by 2013 but only that *I*
> >personally expect it to. But you are focused not upon the process of
> >which there is ubiquitous evidence of similar and previous occurances
> >but upon a date. I'm not ducking and weaving because I don't have
> >anything to duck or weave about. You want false prophets?
>
> > The world
> >is full of them.
>
> I know, and I just found another one.
>
>
>
> >? You want false or pseudoknowledge?
>
> No I get enough of that reading your posts.
>
>
> --
>
> Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
> http://www.ozemail.com.au/~wanglese/pebble.htm
>
> Fight spam:
> http://www.caube.org.au/
>
> "You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."
>
Seismos
geology, why not publish in the AAPG Bulletin so real geologists can be
enlightened.
"C. Cagle" <sing...@telestream.com> wrote in message
news:130420002237003444%sing...@telestream.com...
Wally Anglesea™
wrote:
<SNIP of nutty rant>
>
>The problem is that I say the model as well as is the physics behind it
>is apocalyptic. Do you wan't to reject the model because I claim it is
>apocalyptic (or revelatory)?
Nope. I dismiss it because you are a nut that seems to want to link
his interpretation of solar physics to a preconcieved notion that will
even *be* an apocalypse.
>That is really the problem with you
>fakes. You won't even look at the science behind it because you
>believe that all knowledge must be subjectively generated whereas I
>claim that true knowledge is revelatory. And if revelatory then that
>implies a revealer Whom you insist does not exist because you have
>enthroned not the truth in your heart but rather your fabrications and
>pseudoknowledge. What do you care about where I got the model if it
>works and is accurate and extends our comprehension of the universe?
>But that is what it is with you, isn't it? The model is tainted with
>religion and so you run like a scared rabbit. You should. The model
>is real and the events which I have spoken of will take place.
...... but I just cannot say when, because to do so would mean I have
to put a testable stake in the ground, which means it might get found
out that I'm talking hogwash.
> Similar
>events have taken place in the past there is a universe full of
>evidence to support that claim. You are just too gutless to take a
>good long honest look at it.
>
>
>And below I don't say that it will take place by 2013 but only that *I*
>personally expect it to. But you are focused not upon the process of
>which there is ubiquitous evidence of similar and previous occurances
>but upon a date. I'm not ducking and weaving because I don't have
>anything to duck or weave about. You want false prophets?
> The world
>is full of them.
I know, and I just found another one.
C. Cagle
Wally Anglesea™ <wang...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Apr 2000 18:46:45 GMT, "C. Cagle" <sing...@telestream.com>
> wrote:
>
> <SNIP of nutty rant>
> >
> >The problem is that I say the model as well as is the physics behind it
> >is apocalyptic. Do you wan't to reject the model because I claim it is
> >apocalyptic (or revelatory)?
>
> Nope. I dismiss it because you are a nut that seems to want to link
> his interpretation of solar physics to a preconcieved notion that will
> even *be* an apocalypse.
Confused as to the meaning of apocalyptic or apocalypse?
>
> >That is really the problem with you
> >fakes. You won't even look at the science behind it because you
> >believe that all knowledge must be subjectively generated whereas I
> >claim that true knowledge is revelatory. And if revelatory then that
> >implies a revealer Whom you insist does not exist because you have
> >enthroned not the truth in your heart but rather your fabrications and
> >pseudoknowledge. What do you care about where I got the model if it
> >works and is accurate and extends our comprehension of the universe?
> >But that is what it is with you, isn't it? The model is tainted with
> >religion and so you run like a scared rabbit. You should. The model
> >is real and the events which I have spoken of will take place.
>
> ...... but I just cannot say when, because to do so would mean I have
> to put a testable stake in the ground, which means it might get found
> out that I'm talking hogwash.
You are confused. I've given plenty of predictable physics which can
be tested in the lab to determine the validity of the model. To
present a date was never part of my intent. That you assume that a
date must be given and desire that it be given so that you can hope to
see the date come and go is your fantasy. The reality is that you
shouldn't want that date to hurry along anymore than any death row
inmate wants the executioner to push up his date with him. You won't
live through it.
> > Similar
> >events have taken place in the past there is a universe full of
> >evidence to support that claim. You are just too gutless to take a
> >good long honest look at it.
> >
> >
> >And below I don't say that it will take place by 2013 but only that *I*
> >personally expect it to. But you are focused not upon the process of
> >which there is ubiquitous evidence of similar and previous occurances
> >but upon a date. I'm not ducking and weaving because I don't have
> >anything to duck or weave about. You want false prophets?
>
> > The world
> >is full of them.
>
> I know, and I just found another one.
Then you found yourself. Because the Word of God that I bring will not
fail.
When you go down to your grave in terror surrounded by your loved ones
you can explain the hardness of your heart to them and why you rejected
the Word of God when it came to you.
Charles Cagle
Don Quixote
Mike Williams <mikl...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:D5aK4.2239$%Y3.3...@news.pacbell.net...
> Hey, Wally! Great sig - where did I see that? Something related to the
early
> Chinese explanation for earthquakes, I think.
>
> P.S. I'm not technically proficient enough to figure out which newsgroup
you
> originally posted to, so I am allowing the cross-post. But I would hope
that
> somehow this junk from the latest net-kook can be kept at its original
> location, which I doubt was sci.geo.earthquakes which is the one I
> read..............Good luck, though. They usually just run their course
and
> recede into the miasma from whence they came.
>
> --
>
> Michael Williams
> Arroyo Grande, CA USA
Mike,
I trimmed the headers off of this post to keep it in here. That isn't a new
net kook. He is a scourge that we have to put up with approx. monthly in
sci.geo.geology. He added this newsgroup, or it was added from astro
physics, to be able to put you on notice of the imminent apocalypse. As
much as I trim the cross-posts off they are just added back.....
You need to read up on Charles Cagle; it's a real treat. He is pushing a new
physics/ expanding earth model that was given to him directly by God. Only
those who follow him will be saved when the next earth expansion begins...
maybe this year during the solar maximum.
If you want a real education lurk in sci.geo.geology for a few days and see
the wars going on in nearly every thread now.
http://www.sonic.net/~west/cagle.htm
Follow the links to his other pages from the main page of singtech till you
find the 'Rockies going downward in days, until a large sea forms' and
'Hawaii disappearing in one day', etc, etc.
Hey.... he's from your side of the continent; what can I say.
--
Don Quixote
--windmills tilted; estimates upon request--
Wally Anglesea™
<mikl...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>Hey, Wally! Great sig - where did I see that? Something related to the early
>Chinese explanation for earthquakes, I think.
I think it comes from either a Hawking or Sagan book. I realy must
look it up.
>
>P.S. I'm not technically proficient enough to figure out which newsgroup you
>originally posted to, so I am allowing the cross-post. But I would hope that
>somehow this junk from the latest net-kook can be kept at its original
>location, which I doubt was sci.geo.earthquakes which is the one I
>read..............Good luck, though.
I'll trim the headers in the future, it was in aas, and the
crossposting happened in the message I was responding to.
> They usually just run their course and
>recede into the miasma from whence they came.
Yeah, but there's always a new one. It's part of the "law of the
conservation of kooks"
Mike Williams
You're right that Cagle is not new. In fact about three or four years ago,
and then again about two years ago his posts and the responses were plaguing
this NG. I think he actually complied with our request to not post here, but
it took a very long time for the activity to die out. One thing I will say
about him, however, is that among net-kooks he is particularly intelligent
and well-spoken. No matter how good your counter-argument, he can slice you
up with words and almost seem logical as he does so.
It seems that on the earlier occasions his apocalypse was very imminent,
and, as time has gone by he has learned to specify a later date, and to
remain vague on the subject.
Please feel free to let this header die.
--
Michael Williams
Arroyo Grande, CA USA
"Don Quixote" <donqu...@windmills.com> wrote in message
news:d_cK4.2844$%L6.1...@monger.newsread.com...
>
> Mike Williams <mikl...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:D5aK4.2239$%Y3.3...@news.pacbell.net...
> > Hey, Wally! Great sig - where did I see that? Something related to the
> early
> > Chinese explanation for earthquakes, I think.
> >
> > P.S. I'm not technically proficient enough to figure out which newsgroup
> you
> > originally posted to, so I am allowing the cross-post. But I would hope
> that
> > somehow this junk from the latest net-kook can be kept at its original
> > location, which I doubt was sci.geo.earthquakes which is the one I
> > read..............Good luck, though. They usually just run their course
> and
> > recede into the miasma from whence they came.
> >
John Rietman
>electromagnetotoroid (EMT) which when it is in the toroidal current
>mode produces the planets's (or star's) dipole magnetic field and which
>when it is in the poloidal current mode generates mass in the form of
>neutrons in the core.
I have a problem with this. Mass from force. Very difficult to
conceptualize the quantum mechanics here.
The obvious proof is an EMT device that can be constructed that will
generate mass.
C. Cagle
Wally Anglesea™ <wang...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Apr 2000 02:43:05 GMT, "C. Cagle" <sing...@telestream.com>
> wrote:
> >In article <vp0ifscen4ek9p8bk...@news.ozemail.com.au>,
> >Wally Anglesea™ <wang...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 12 Apr 2000 18:46:45 GMT, "C. Cagle" <sing...@telestream.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> <SNIP of nutty rant>
> >> >
> >> >The problem is that I say the model as well as is the physics behind it
> >> >is apocalyptic. Do you want to reject the model because I claim it is
> >> >apocalyptic (or revelatory)?
> >>
> >> Nope. I dismiss it because you are a nut that seems to want to link
> >> his interpretation of solar physics to a preconcieved notion that will
> >> even *be* an apocalypse.
> >
> >Confused as to the meaning of apocalyptic or apocalypse?
>
> Not at all. Obviously though, you want to have it both ways.
You're lying now. You didn't know the meaning.
> >> >That is really the problem with you
> >> >fakes. You won't even look at the science behind it because you
> >> >believe that all knowledge must be subjectively generated whereas I
> >> >claim that true knowledge is revelatory. And if revelatory then that
> >> >implies a revealer Whom you insist does not exist because you have
> >> >enthroned not the truth in your heart but rather your fabrications and
> >> >pseudoknowledge. What do you care about where I got the model if it
> >> >works and is accurate and extends our comprehension of the universe?
> >> >But that is what it is with you, isn't it? The model is tainted with
> >> >religion and so you run like a scared rabbit. You should. The model
> >> >is real and the events which I have spoken of will take place.
> >>
> >> ...... but I just cannot say when, because to do so would mean I have
> >> to put a testable stake in the ground, which means it might get found
> >> out that I'm talking hogwash.
> >
> >You are confused. I've given plenty of predictable physics which can
> >be tested in the lab to determine the validity of the model. To
> >present a date was never part of my intent.
>
>
> Of course not, because your "predictable physics" has the following
> rider (from your own writings):
It is not a rider. It is a fact. I never ever stated that I would
provide a date.
> > >I won't be making any excuses because it will happen. When? Soon.
> > >Maybe not this year and maybe not this decade but soon. As soon as a
> > >Coronal Mass Ejection of the right alignment and sufficient intensity
> > >strikes the Earth's field. You want me to name a date when this will
> > >occur? Sorry. I don't name dates. Why? Because I don't know the
> > >date and I never have said that I do.
>
> then you wrote:
>
> > > Personally, however, I expect
> > >it within the next thirteen years which means it could start this month
> > >or perhaps not until sometime in 2013. But it will come. But whenever
> > >it happens it will be associated with an especially strong solar
> > >maximum.
>
>
> Then you wrote:
>
> > >And below I don't say that it will take place by 2013 but only that *I*
> > >personally expect it to. But you are focused not upon the process of
> > >which there is ubiquitous evidence of similar and previous occurances
> > >but upon a date. I'm not ducking and weaving because I don't have
> > >anything to duck or weave about. You want false prophets?
> >
>
> and then finally you wrote:
>
> >Hey, if 2013 comes and goes without such events as I have described,
> >wonderful. That simply means that the Eternal God is being more
> >merciful. Who can tell but that this message might cause people to
> >repent so that He will delay the day of His fierce wrath.
>
>
> So lets sum up your position as I see it from your posts.
That's the real problem. You can't just see what I wrote and read it
and take it to heart but instead reject it an then must retranslate it
into what you write and then attribute your witless retranslation to
me. Sorry, but you are delusional.
> 1: There's going to be a problem, and my physics predicts it
The geological and historical records have shown that it has taken
place in the past. Your blindness does not equate to the nonexistence
of that which you are too witless to see. It is not just my physics
which predicts it but the past predicts it because related events have
occurred again and again in the past and once one knows the mechanisms
one can know why they occurred in the past.
> 2: it doesn't predict a date, so I cannot give you one.
Oh and this really needles you, too, doesn't it? Your insipience
concerning this is manifest for all to see. You believe that an
asteroid or some large meterorite will strike the Earth and you can
believe in the process because we have physical evidence that such
events have occurred in the past. You wouldn't expect anyone who says
that one of these days we're going to get hit again to provide a date
and you don't hold your breath waiting for it to happen and there's
little you believe that you could do. However if you knew with
certainty when and where a large meteorite would come down I think
you'd make plenty of preparations to be in the safest place you could
imagine at the time of impact. You'd probably even do all that you
could to save your friends and family. You might even care enough
about the rest of mankind that you'd want to warn them.
Now the reality is that you don't want to consider that the Earth's
magnetic field can be stimulated into a mode change even though you can
see that the Sun's magnetic field goes through such mode changes. In
fact, if you look at the behavior of HH30, a large stellar jet system,
you can see that it likewise goes through dipole reversal or dipole
excursion sequences indicating such mode changes are ubiquitous for
stellar objects. You ignore or are ignorant of the data that suggests
that Venus, Io, and Comet Hyakutake all have dynamic
electromagnetotoroids which are presently in the poloidal current mode
causing them each to present the signature of a large scale electric
dipole structure which causes them to generate extremely long ion
tails. Io circles in its own tail and produces an ion torus around
Jupiter. Io is belching out the hottest lava in the solar system and
even though the pseudoscientific explanation for the heat source for
the generation of that hot lava (tidal flexing) cannot account for such
temperatures scientists still promote that idea.
The reality is that the Earth's electromagnetotoroid (EMT) has cycled
through some 171 dipole reversal sequences since the period known as
the Jurassic. We have paleontological evidence (in northern Michigan)
that the surface of the Earth was subjected to the intense bombardment
of high energy protons which must have originated from solar flaring.
The only time when an intense solar flare could penetrate to ground
level like that would be when the Earth's magnetic field was down which
occurs when the Earth's EMT is in the poloidal current mode. The
radiation (proton flux) was so intense that the biosphere in the region
must have undergone extreme devastation. The radiocarbon clocks in the
region were reset by at least 10,000 years by this event.
Now your real problem is that some unknown interloper into the fields
of geology and geophysics and stellar physics has stumbled onto this
stuff and it makes the professionals in the field look bad because they
didn't see it. The facts are that dipole reversal sequences have
happened in the past and few geophysicists will dispute that. One of
the problems is that perhaps none of them have ever sat down and
reasoned out what would occur to the biosphere in the event of a dipole
reversal sequence when the Earth's magnetic field was gone. I'm merely
pointing out the obvious (scorching of the Earth's surface) and there
is plenty of data to substantiate it. So what is it you? You want to
stand up and go on record as being in denial that dipole reversal
sequences take place?
Maybe you witlessly want to argue with the data about there being a
mass generation process? If so then I suggest that you go get a copy
of 'Project Sherwood' published by Addison-Wesley at any large
university library and study the data which showed bursts of 100
million neutrons coming out of plasma pinch experiments the energy
spectrum of which indicated that they did not originate from fusion.
The scientists on the project never did figure out the source of those
neutrons. Do you want to argue with the simple equations I have
presented which really are simple extensions of Maxwell's equations
that demonstrates the reality of a rotary force that causes the current
density vector to rotate when there is a fast rise in either current
density or magnetic flux density? That same current vector rotation
(CVR) process not only accounts for the dynamic mode changes of the
magnetic fields of stars and planets but also implies the generation of
primitive current loop singularities at various size scales from the
super macro to the micro domain. At the micro domain such primitive
current loop singularities are in direct identity with neutrons. So
the CVR process predicts the generation of mass and the conditions
which occur in the core of the Earth's EMT during the poloidal current
mode happen to be exactly those conditions which stimulates the CVR
process at multiple size domain scales. Hence, when the Earth's EMT is
stimulated into a mode change by the impact of a Coronal Mass Ejection
and makes the transition from toroidal current mode (magnetic dipole
mode) by the simple pi/2 radian rotation of the current density vector
into the poloidal current mode (electric dipole mode) it begins to
produce mass in the core in the form of neutrons at the rate of
hundreds of billions of tons per second. The subsequent lithospheric
tension generated produces tremendous and rapid sea floor spreading.
That same lithospheric tension unlatches whole orogens and causes their
rapid subsidence. Meanwhile huge tensional rifts allow for extreme
basalt flooding and for the emergence of new fast rising diapiric
orogens.
Now what are you arguing about here? That the Earth doesn't go through
dipole reversal sequences? That there is no sea floor spreading? That
the Earth hasn't grown substantially in volume? The reality of the
generation of mass means that radiometric dating is based upon
fallacious premises. So, perhaps you want to argue that the sea floor
spreading has taken two hundred million years based upon fallacious
dating methods? Maybe you want to argue that it takes tens of
thousands of years for the Earth's magnetic field to decay? If so then
you ought to go argue with the magnetic field changes recorded in the
lavas at Steens Mountain in southeastern Oregon which shows that the
field was changing at the rate of six degrees per day. Since the CVR
process indicates the field only has to rotate ninety degrees that
means the field can be completely down in as little as fifteen days.
This data has be published twice in Nature.
> 3: if I give a date (and I personally believe it will be before 2013)
Personal comment. That is all that it was. It wasn't a prediction.
> and, finally
>
> 4: if nothing like what my physics predicts actually happens, it's not
> my theories that are actually wrong, it's just that God chose to be
> merciful.
Not quite. What I have described will happen, it has happened in the
past and now we understand the physical mechanisms behind all of it.
By 'we' I mean those people who have understood the modeling and the
physics. It doesn't matter if you believe it or not because it will
occur anyway and it is going to occur in the near future. I've given
you the knowledge to understand the physical processes which will one
day take your life and the lives of most of mankind living now. What
you don't comprehend is what drives these processes ultimately. Now
you know that the Earth isn't nearly as old as modern science would
have you believe that it is and now you know that the flood was a real
event which inundated the whole world. The world was once made and it
serves as the training ground for the children of God that they may
develop the attributes that are appropriate for them and pleasing to
God.
> Does that sum it up?
Not at all. You aren't capable of summing it up.
Charles Cagle
C. Cagle
<j...@geomarinetech.com> wrote:
> >I have named an
> >electromagnetotoroid (EMT) which when it is in the toroidal current
> >mode produces the planets's (or star's) dipole magnetic field and which
> >when it is in the poloidal current mode generates mass in the form of
> >neutrons in the core.
>
>
> I have a problem with this. Mass from force. Very difficult to
> conceptualize the quantum mechanics here.
I don't recall that your problems are to somehow become my problems.
> The obvious proof is an EMT device that can be constructed that will
> generate mass.
Well, sure.
Wally Anglesea™
wrote:
<SNIP of rant which avoided all logic>
>
>Not quite. What I have described will happen, it has happened in the
>past and now we understand the physical mechanisms behind all of it.
>By 'we' I mean those people who have understood the modeling and the
>physics. It doesn't matter if you believe it or not because it will
>occur anyway and it is going to occur in the near future. I've given
>you the knowledge to understand the physical processes which will one
>day take your life and the lives of most of mankind living now. What
>you don't comprehend is what drives these processes ultimately. Now
>you know that the Earth isn't nearly as old as modern science would
>have you believe that it is and now you know that the flood was a real
>event which inundated the whole world.
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
> The world was once made and it
>serves as the training ground for the children of God that they may
>develop the attributes that are appropriate for them and pleasing to
>God.
>
>> Does that sum it up?
>
>Not at all. You aren't capable of summing it up.
I can sum you up in one word....... Kook.
>
>Charles Cagle
Robert Narsavage
RJ
Wally AngleseaT <wang...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:3uplfso57vg3b7502...@news.ozemail.com.au...
> On Mon, 17 Apr 2000 04:48:01 GMT, "C. Cagle" <sing...@telestream.com>
> wrote:
>
> <SNIP of rant which avoided all logic>
>
> >
> >Not quite. What I have described will happen, it has happened in the
> >past and now we understand the physical mechanisms behind all of it.
> >By 'we' I mean those people who have understood the modeling and the
> >physics. It doesn't matter if you believe it or not because it will
> >occur anyway and it is going to occur in the near future. I've given
> >you the knowledge to understand the physical processes which will one
> >day take your life and the lives of most of mankind living now. What
> >you don't comprehend is what drives these processes ultimately. Now
> >you know that the Earth isn't nearly as old as modern science would
> >have you believe that it is and now you know that the flood was a real
> >event which inundated the whole world.
>
>
> BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
>
>
>
>
>
> > The world was once made and it
> >serves as the training ground for the children of God that they may
> >develop the attributes that are appropriate for them and pleasing to
> >God.
> >
> >> Does that sum it up?
> >
> >Not at all. You aren't capable of summing it up.
>
John Burke
On Sun, 16 Apr 2000, John Rietman wrote:
> - The obvious proof is an EMT device that can be constructed that will
> - generate mass.
> -
Funny that, my fiancee has been looking for years for a gadget that
will do the complete opposite :-)
John Burke.
John Rietman
generate energy at the cost of mass? If this can be created through a
fantastic new electro-magnetic device, it would bankrupt Jenny Craig!
"John Burke" <lt...@london.waii.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.A32.3.95.1000417...@kite.london.waii.com...
:
:
:
:
:
John Rietman
I have never had such a good laugh. Thank You Duane.
:And also an event
: that may have been a pole-shift at around the time the Chinese colander
: began in 1953BC.
I am not sure that the chinese invented the colander in 1953 BC. You may be
right however because they did invent spaghetti and would of course need a
colander to strain the water out.
: Now, I don't know if the planetary
: positions are responsible for a pole-shift or not, but one happened back
: then, and the Bible says another will happen in the future .
I haven't been able to find refernces to magnetic reversals in the bible,
could it be in the New Testament?
:The Bible also: mentions the destruction of Mystery Babylon as being many
countries shooting
: all their arrows at Babylon at the same time (on an impulse). The noise
from
: the destruction moves the Earth.
Must have been some really long-range arrows. What do you think possessed
those guys to step outside on impulse and let fly with their arrows. It
takes a long time to chip out a flint arrowhead, can't really believe that
those primitives would just up and let fly for no reason whatever. Do you
think they were actually trying to shoot seagulls or pigeons or something?
:. At the next
: pole-shift the Earth is supposed to reel to and fro like a drunkard and
: finally fall on it's side, never to rise again.
After a few beers this has happened to me, why not mother earth? - just flop
over and lay on her side huh? Which way would be up then???
Keep posting more like this. I find it very imaginative and entertaining.
JR
Charley Hamilton
"Wally Anglesea™" wrote:
[much snippage]
> >Hey, Wally! Great sig - where did I see that? Something related to the early
> >Chinese explanation for earthquakes, I think.
>
> I think it comes from either a Hawking or Sagan book. I realy must
> look it up.
>
> "You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."
I thought this was (at least repeated?) in a Terry Pratchett book,
one of the Discworld novels containing the character Twoflower.
I should check my shelf when I get home.
Charley
--
Charles Hamilton, EIT Graduate Student Researcher
Department of Civil and Phone: 949.824.8694
Environmental Engineering FAX: 949.824.2117
University of California, Irvine Email: cham...@eng.uci.edu
JohnT
J. Scott Miller wrote:
> Define "mountains". And is the definition of whether this mountain "of
> absolute bullshit which gets published in peer reviewed journals" such only
> because you don't agree with what was published? Specifically, is it bullshit
> simply because it runs counter to your own pet theory?
>
> Pole shifting is probably a dead horse simply because of the moderating
> influence of the Earth's Moon. Recent computer simulations seem to bear that
> out. Mr. Morse has made a claim and I have challenged him on it. Since
> sarcasm doesn't translate well into type very well, you missed the point.
>
> As to Newton, if his work had not been forced into the light of day, then it
> might have been discovered among his papers after he died, assuming they were
> not tossed out, or they might have been rediscovered by someone else more
> willing to publish the results. So, my suggestion to Mr. Morse is a practical
> one. If he thinks he has something substantial, he shouldn't hide it under a
> bushel basket, but let it shine forth. And one way to do that is to publish
> the results and have others look at the evidence he presents.---
> --
> J. Scott Miller, Program Coordinator Scott....@louisville.edu
> Gheens Science Center and Rauch Planetarium
> http://www.louisville.edu/planetarium
> University of Louisville
Leibniz also invented calculus around the same time, and published first.
The math history book I read this in indicated that Newton was more adept
at applying the ideas to solve problems, but the notation of Leibniz was superior.
Scott, I would really like someone to look at the suggestions in my post in
alt.astronomy.solar and see if the link between planetary tidal influence on
the sun and solar activity seems statistically sound. If it is, the mechanism
exists. I've been waiting 10 yrs for some professional investigation of this
idea. The solar data exists, and it shouldn't be hard to calculate the net
tidal acceleration caused by planets, or to use half-synodic periods to
calculate the periodicity of tidal acceleration. I'd post some numbers here
for the remainder of the year, and next year, if it were convenient to
power up my little old C64 system. What I calculated looks promising
to me, but pro calculations to compare to pro data would be better, don't
you think?
I used the easiest system of units I could think of, AUs for distance,
earth masses for mass, earth years, etc. Average net tidal accelerations
were about 2, and the RMS "average" for 1999 was about 2.75,
exceptionally high. I don't recall the values for unexceptional years, but
this year's average figured to be less. The largest peaks were a little
over 7. Why RMS values? Because they give more weight to peak values
than a simple average would.
If there's a real solar astronomer out there looking into this, pls let me
know what you are finding. Thanks.
JohnT, Night Shift Working Stiff
Mike Williams
<<"Wally AngleseaT" wrote:
[much snippage]
> >Hey, Wally! Great sig - where did I see that? Something related to the
early
> >Chinese explanation for earthquakes, I think.
>
> I think it comes from either a Hawking or Sagan book. I realy must
> look it up.
>
> "You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."
I thought this was (at least repeated?) in a Terry Pratchett book,
one of the Discworld novels containing the character Twoflower.
I should check my shelf when I get home.
Charley>>
Do, Please! I think it was Hawking or Sagan who attributed it (since I
haven't read Pratchett), but I am really wondering what it was from. I'm
going to put it my spare sig file, anyway, since it's so funny. If Wally
stops using it, I'll take it up...
.
--
Michael Williams
Arroyo Grande, CA USA
"Charley Hamilton" <cham...@eng.uci.edu> wrote in message
news:38FDD7A3...@eng.uci.edu...
Don Quixote
> Charley Hamilton wrote:
>
> <<"Wally AngleseaT" wrote:
> [much snippage]
> > >Hey, Wally! Great sig - where did I see that? Something related to the
> early
> > >Chinese explanation for earthquakes, I think.
> >
> > I think it comes from either a Hawking or Sagan book. I realy must
> > look it up.
> >
> > "You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."
>
> I thought this was (at least repeated?) in a Terry Pratchett book,
> one of the Discworld novels containing the character Twoflower.
> I should check my shelf when I get home.
>
> Charley>>
>
> Do, Please! I think it was Hawking or Sagan who attributed it (since I
> haven't read Pratchett), but I am really wondering what it was from. I'm
> going to put it my spare sig file, anyway, since it's so funny. If Wally
> stops using it, I'll take it up...
>
> "Charley Hamilton" <cham...@eng.uci.edu> wrote in message
> news:38FDD7A3...@eng.uci.edu...
> >
> >
> > "Wally AngleseaT" wrote:
> > [much snippage]
> > > >Hey, Wally! Great sig - where did I see that? Something related to
the
> early
> > > >Chinese explanation for earthquakes, I think.
> > >
> > > I think it comes from either a Hawking or Sagan book. I realy must
> > > look it up.
> > >
> > > "You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."
> >
> > I thought this was (at least repeated?) in a Terry Pratchett book,
> > one of the Discworld novels containing the character Twoflower.
> > I should check my shelf when I get home.
> >
> > Charley
Maybe I am thinking of something else, or coming into this discussion too
late, but isn't "turtles all the way down" from an ancient proverb and a
later discussion by two gentlemen of that theory, that goes thusly:
*Some ancient people used to believe that the earth rested on the back of an
elephant and that elephant stood on the back of a turtle. I remember
hearing a story of two gentlemen discussing this primitive theory of
genesis: What's that turtle standing on?" said the more skeptical of the
two. "Another turtle," said the other. And that turtle, what is he
standing on?" "Another turtle." Before the skeptic could ask his question
again the other said, "It's turtles all the way down."*
Do a search on Google and you will get an unbelievable number of hits on the
phrase "turtles all the way down".
DQ
Dennis E. Tamasovich
The Book of revelation). Recall, the Angel said it is a city. And all the
kings of the Earth have gotton rich from her (kings is used to described
Senators, Congressmen, Kings, Prime Ministers, etc. You get the point don't
you. From daniel...again in the service of G_d.
Wally Anglesea™ wrote in message
<2u06fss2og0ss9vqr...@news.ozemail.com.au>...
>On Tue, 11 Apr 2000 06:52:23 GMT, "C. Cagle" <sing...@telestream.com>
>wrote:
>
>>[[ This message was both posted and mailed: see
>> the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
>>
>>In article <sddq6nl...@corp.supernews.com>, Dennis B. Peters
>><dbpe...@tscnet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Tony Chappelle wrote in message - >
>>> >Furthermore - if there is anything in your 'Holy' bible concerning
>>> >astronomical events then it is all stuff that has been plagiarised
>>> >from the hard scientific work put in by other
>>>
>>> In fact there are legitamate refrences to astronomical events. Read
David
>>> Rhole ;" A test of Time.
>>> Further evidence has been uncovered;"independent of Christian Sources;
That
>>> support much of the Old testemant. Go figure!!
>>>
>>>
>>> Emotional rambling in both camps have been proven here.
>>>
>>> One ; as I have stated before; is that there are referable astronomical
>>> events in the ancient writtings that are limited by the church canon.
>>>
>>> Two; the events that this zealot decries is pure bunk.
>>
>>Sort of. There *will be* great cataclysmic events which will kill
>>almost everyone (at least two thirds) in the world but they will follow
>>the events which will stimulate a magnetic dipole reversal or dipole
>>excursion event, not a rotational pole shift.
>
>
>
>Pray tell us, when will this happen? and what excuses will you have
>when it doesn't?
>
>(Don't email me. Make it public.)
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>
>Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
>http://www.ozemail.com.au/~wanglese/pebble.htm
>
>Fight spam:
>http://www.caube.org.au/
>
Andraska
messages, when a couple of paragraphs would suffice???
Andraska
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
C. Cagle
<carey_mat...@bigpond.com.invalid> wrote:
> Why is it that creationists always write such long boring
> messages, when a couple of paragraphs would suffice???
>
> Andraska
Why is it that bigot nitwits like you are so shallow that messages
filled with information makes your eyes glaze over?
Charles Cagle
Jeff Renaud
They're not glazing over from confusion & lack of ability to assimilate,
but from boredom.
AhuraMazdah
--
CoT/KoB #611
Lord of the Skies
Keeper of the Sacred Keys
---------------------------------------------------
If you love something, set it free. If it comes back, it will always
be yours. If it doesn't come back, it was never yours to begin with.
But... If it just sits in your living room, messes up your stuff, eats
your food, uses your telephone, takes your money, and doesn't appear
to realise that you actually set it free in the first place, you
either married it or gave birth to it.
---------------------------------------------------
ICQ: 47832754
IRC: EFNet #Dawn_of_Atlantis
news:alt.legend.atlantis
Usenet FAQ: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atlantis/7001/alafaq.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atlantis/7001
John Beaderstadt
Notice, everyone, how civil I was and even how complimentary I was towards Chuckie.Now notice how nasty and personal and downright insulting Chuckie was towards me.
Learn to trim your posts, Bob, or there are several more of us who
will dump on you.
--
"I tried to imagine the easiest way God could have done it."
--Albert Einstein
John Beaderstadt
one knows how to trim a post. Is it really necessary to quote entire paragraphs,
just to add a line or two?
Robert Narsavage
John Beaderstadt <be...@together.net> wrote in message news:390E1E05...@together.net...
Robert Narsavage wrote:Notice, everyone, how civil I was and even how complimentary I was towards Chuckie.Now notice how nasty and personal and downright insulting Chuckie was towards me.
Learn to trim your posts, Bob, or there are several more of us who will dump on you.
Nice 18-day reply to my post, John. Dump all you want, since you haven't noticed any of my more recent posts have been trimmed.
Welcome to the present-day.
RJ
Alan Johnson
> I just found this group, and the first thing I've noticed is that, apparently, no
> one knows how to trim a post. Is it really necessary to quote entire paragraphs,
> just to add a line or two?
>
<snip>
If you've "just" found this group, you should hold yourself back with comments like
"no one", or "everyone", etc. I've been using this group for a "long time" now, but
I've already noticed that you're a bit quick off the mark!
Regards
--
Alan Johnson
Staatlich Geprüfter Techniker - Geologietechnik -
Geological and geotechnical translations
- German/English - English/German -
http://home.t-online.de/home/ajohnson/pages/intro.htm
Man ist nicht nur für das, was man tut, sondern auch für jenes,
welches man unterläßt, verantwortlich.
Schiller
"Der Parasit"
John Beaderstadt
> I've already noticed that you're a bit quick off the mark!
See? It works; no need to wait. ;-)
C. Cagle
<mikl...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Hi Don!
>
> You're right that Cagle is not new. In fact about three or four years ago,
> and then again about two years ago his posts and the responses were plaguing
> this NG. I think he actually complied with our request to not post here, but
> it took a very long time for the activity to die out.
I wasn't complying with any requests. I was weary of dealing with the
pseudoscience I encountered here.
> One thing I will say about him, however, is that among net-kooks he
> is particularly intelligent and well-spoken. No matter how good your
> counter-argument, he can slice you up with words and almost seem
> logical as he does so.
You have to be like Cleopatra taking a bath [deep in de Nile :-)] to
not realize that it isn't that I simply seem logical. I present clear
precise logical arguments because they are there to be presented. I'm
not afraid to challenge the pseudoscience that abounds in the world and
is frequently articulated in this and a number of other newsgroups. I
weary of it occasionally but I'm never afraid because it generally
comes apart like wet tissue paper when properly attacked.
> It seems that on the earlier occasions his apocalypse was very imminent,
> and, as time has gone by he has learned to specify a later date, and to
> remain vague on the subject.
It is very imminent. But what is imminent to one person may not seem
to be to another. I've never specified a date. If I said that it will
be here in the next 13 years that is quite imminent considering the
length of written human history and if I said that it will start in a
month that is hardly more imminent with respect to that same span of
history through which man has already come.
I have clearly outlined the physics and processes behind the
destruction that is coming and in the bargain have presented a number
of new discoveries in particle and plasma and geo and stellar physics -
but few are listening.
I was prepared for mockery because I have known for a long while that
the world in general doesn't care much about the truth and in fact
typically rages against it. But my efforts have been a great
education to me and I owe many of the denizens of this and several
other newsgroups a debt of gratitude. By presenting my arguments and
modeling I have learned more about the blatant weaknesses of modern
science. I know where certain methods are quite useful and I know that
methods and processes which are useful in one area of science are
completely inappropriate to use in other areas of investigation. In my
learning these things by the type of arguments that I encountered I
found out that the general scientific community hadn't a clue about
them. I found that the scientific community, in general, did not have
an inkling about the vital role that epistemology needs to play in the
'scientific' process. In fact, I found by their responses that most
scientists which I have encountered, because they are ignorant of
epistemology, are also highly disdainful of it.
> > I trimmed the headers off of this post to keep it in here. That
> > isn't a new net kook. He is a scourge that we have to put up with
> > approx. monthly in sci.geo.geology. He added this newsgroup, or it
> > was added from astro physics, to be able to put you on notice of
> > the imminent apocalypse. As much as I trim the cross-posts off they
> > are just added back.....
> >
> > You need to read up on Charles Cagle; it's a real treat. He is
> > pushing a new physics/ expanding earth model that was given to him
> > directly by God. Only those who follow him will be saved when the
> > next earth expansion begins... maybe this year during the solar
> > maximum.
That is a flat out lie and if you had any character you would retract
it. I've never ever said that only those who follow me will be saved
when the next episode of Earth expansion begins. Your motivation for
posting such a lie in the day and age of usenet where virtually all of
my past posts are available is unclear. I mean, why would you post a
lie when you know you cannot confirm it by any posting that I have ever
made nor by the accurate transcript of any interview I have ever given?
> > If you want a real education lurk in sci.geo.geology for a few days
> > and see the wars going on in nearly every thread now.
I think they are over. The fools have been beaten back for a while.
> > See: http://www.singtech.com
> >
> > http://www.sonic.net/~west/cagle.htm
West has distorted what I have written for his own purposes. When we
encountered each other he fomented an inappropriate response from Carey
Oler (a solar scientist) for which Oler later apologized while taking
him (West) to task for giving him misleading information about me and
what I had written. West is a deceiver and a thief (uses copyrighted
graphic images of mine without permission) and hates me. Why he hates
me is related to the fact that I don't suffer fools gladly.
> > Follow the links to his other pages from the main page of singtech
> > till you find the 'Rockies going downward in days, until a large
> > sea forms' and 'Hawaii disappearing in one day', etc, etc.
> >
> > Hey.... he's from your side of the continent; what can I say.
Apparently not a great deal which isn't shaded with your innuendos
which when properly brought into the light promptly evaporate as do the
illogical conclusions to which you often come.
Charles Cagle
Lola Lariscy
> John Beaderstadt wrote:
>
> > I just found this group, and the first thing I've noticed is that, apparently, no
> > one knows how to trim a post. Is it really necessary to quote entire paragraphs,
> > just to add a line or two?
> >
>
> <snip>
> If you've "just" found this group, you should hold yourself back with comments like
> "no one", or "everyone", etc. I've been using this group for a "long time" now, but
> I've already noticed that you're a bit quick off the mark!
>
> snip (if you must know)
I just came here too..and I'm sorry. Is this the Buffy the Vampire Slayer newsgroup?
Cause you know, usually pettiness (I'm talking about whoever it was who was complaining
about snipping) is usually only found on the ng's frequented by the younger, less
academic set. (Oh wait. That's not true. I went to college. It affects the academic set
too.)
>
>
> --
>
>