Comments on: NCAR: “number of sunspots provides an incomplete measure of changes in the Sun’s impact on Earth”

By: katesisco

katesisco — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 17:52:33 +0000

Like to read, most of the time I get banned but still……………Let’s have a thought experiment: if HARP is fluffing up the ionosphere to make more room for the cosmic rays to bounce back and forth, losing energy, causing less to hit the Earth at full energy, wouldn’t that be a good thing? And if the Moon slam stirs up dust, H2O, other to attract the cosmic rays, maybe even electrostaticaly, that would be a good thing, yes?

By: Doug

Doug — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 13:20:16 +0000

A paradigm changes when a new dimension is perceived. When TIME is fully incorporated all the current paradigms will change. And when the fact that everything is ALIVE is perceived and acknowledged all current paradigms will dramatically change.

By: Doug

Doug — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 18:04:33 +0000

kim
“It is almost inevitable that the present paradigm of understanding will change. It is in the nature of understanding if not in the nature of nature itself.”

I agree.
For example, the present belief is that the earth is round. This paradigm will be superseded when TIME is acknowledged and incorporated.
When TIME is incorporated (as in the space-time continuum) then the earth will be recognized as being a spiral.
Every paradigm will be superseded.

By: Doug

Doug — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 17:43:16 +0000

Gene Nemetz:
Sure Leif, have it your way.
I have to shake my head at the thought that some people think you are brilliant.

Leif is an example of someone well steeped in the current paradigm. But that paradigm is quickly passing. It is always possible within the cocoon of a reigning paradigm to find “explanations” for everything and be dismissive of different ideas. Until those new ideas become the new paradigm. This is the pattern.

By: tallbloke

tallbloke — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 23:11:32 +0000

Leif Svalgaard (11:34:33) :

tallbloke (09:49:20) :
How will you prove or disprove a 72km/s periodicity with that?
How about you convincing us with relevant links and careful evaluation of the accuracy of 30-40 old measurements compared to modern data.

Blimey, I didn’t realise the attempt to sweep Tifft and Arp under the carpet had been going on that long.

Seriously though, modern whole sky techniques are great, but not necessarily more accurate than older small scale studies.

Anyhow, Guthrie and Napier are up to date with using newer data, and they still confirm Tifft’s findings.

I’ll follow your recommendation and read up more on this to find out about accuracy and resolution.

By: Gene Nemetz

Gene Nemetz — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 21:40:36 +0000

ctm I’m not happy about this. It’s a lot of extra work. This is an hour I did not have today. ~ charles the moderator

This thread isn’t on the front page of WUWT. So I think few people saw the comments. Just telling us to get off the topic would have been enough—it would have been for me, probably for Leif too. That way you wouldn’t have had to spend time deleting anything. It’s Saturday—I wish you would have been out enjoying the day instead.

Reply: Enough already. This is done. No one is angry. ~ ctm

By: Gene Nemetz

Gene Nemetz — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 19:21:48 +0000

ctm

I was a reluctant participant because I know where these debates usually go. But I continued only because I was learning something other than about ‘evolution’. I was probing—unknowingly to someone ;-).

Now that I see you say it is a prohibited topic here I will be glad to stay away from it.

Sorry for the faux pas of being on that topic.

By: Gene Nemetz

Gene Nemetz — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 19:12:28 +0000

[snip ~ enough ~ ctm]

By: Gene Nemetz

Gene Nemetz — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 19:10:12 +0000

it’s been going on for days.

That leaves the impression that is was ok.

Reply: Yeah, sorry about that. There are multiple moderators and things sometimes slip by. I’m surprised Anthony let it go on this long. Moderating is a thankless job and sometimes the moderators fall out of sync. I’m not happy about this. It’s a lot of extra work. This is an hour I did not have today. ~ charles the moderator

By: Gene Nemetz

Gene Nemetz — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 19:09:01 +0000

Leif Svalgaard (11:55:02) : As it well deserves to be. Are everyone elses comments deserving of deletion and not yours Leif? Reply: I've deleted a few of Leif's ~ ctm

By: Leif Svalgaard

Leif Svalgaard — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 18:57:11 +0000

Leif Svalgaard (11:55:02) : Your comment is awaiting moderation
[I will be deleting most of it ~ charles the moderator]
As it well deserves to be, along with BB and barycenter nonsense.

By: Leif Svalgaard

Leif Svalgaard — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 18:55:02 +0000

Gene Nemetz (11:40:20) :
[oh boy, was there an evolution debate while I was sleeping? Prohibited subject. Prohibited. Prohibited. Prohibited. ~ ctm]
[ok, I just looked and see it's been going on for days. I have been traveling and not around much. I will be deleting most of it ~ charles the moderator]
As it well deserves to be.

By: Gene Nemetz

Gene Nemetz — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 18:40:20 +0000

Leif Svalgaard (11:32:42) :

[oh boy, was there an evolution debate while I was sleeping? Prohibited subject. Prohibited. Prohibited. Prohibited. ~ ctm]

[ok, I just looked and see it's been going on for days. I have been traveling and not around much. I will be deleting most of it ~ charles the moderator]

By: Leif Svalgaard

Leif Svalgaard — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 18:34:33 +0000

tallbloke (09:49:20) :
How will you prove or disprove a 72km/s periodicity with that?
How about you convincing us with relevant links and careful evaluation of the accuracy of 30-40 old measurements compared to modern data.

By: Gene Nemetz

Gene Nemetz — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 16:56:19 +0000

Sure Leif, have it your way.

I have to shake my head at the thought that some people think you are brilliant.