Solar flares and Earthquakes, Is there a connection?

Matter is governed by what I call the background forces of matter, the ancient names are "the waters" and the "light." The waters cause matter to release or express (what we commonly think is) energy. The light causes matter to store or recycle (what we commonly think is) energy. Any changes in either force can be translated around a planet or from one star to the next instantaneously.
So a flare on the sun may be induced by a 'rise' in the waters, and the same phenomenon can happen on earth in the instant. On earth, it affects the weather immediately, and can cause earthquakes, which usually happen days or weeks after the event, but can also be simultaneous.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Lee777: It's not quite the same concept, but a little while back we had this guy wroberson posting threads like this: link.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What is your evidence for the existence of these two forces? How do they relate to the forces generally thought by physicists to govern the universe?

What is your evidence for this?

What is your evidence for this?

etc.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Your entire post is what I call unscientific crap.

 

There is no correlation that I can see.

 

Replying to Origin as well, there is no scientific evidence of these things.

What I am saying is not guesswork and it is only a matter of time before it comes to light.

For example, for decades science has made it very clear that the sun is hotter inside than outside. For years I have been observing and saying that the sun is cooler deeper down into its surface. This has only been discovered recently and scientists still find it a mystery. Until now I have had no proof, but it is not a mystery to me. Sun spots are such an obvious sign of that phenomenom... it is bewildering how anyone could look at it and keep denying that.

 

I didn't ask for proof, I asked for evidence. I ask you again, what evidence is there? Either there is evidence that led you to make these assertions, or you just made them up. If you made them up, then we can safely ignore you and your assertions. If there was evidence that led you to these assertions then please share that evidence with us.

If it is not guesswork then I think you mean that these are well reasoned assertions. In that case please share the reasoning with us. For example, what leads you to believe there are two forces?

So you will have no problem in providing a citation for the work wherein scientists report this discovery. Please do so in your next post.

 

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/04/24/3483573.htm?topic=space

Article regarding slower sun activity deep under the surface.

 

I've changed the word proof to evidence in my post.

My reasoning comes from a lifetime of interest in nature, but has only come together in the last few years after researching ancient concepts since 1994.

The fact that my comments are called crap, indicates to me that they are thinking straight, because I thought the same for many years.

I would be surprised if anyone agreed with me, and I have had to continuously question my newfound conclusions, and I still do.

However I now have, over two thousand illustrations in nature that seem to verify what I have discovered. By posting comments on various scientific topics, I distribute what may be picked up on through personal observation.

If nature and observation is "evidence," then it is important that perceptions are not shackled by intellectual codependency.

If "evidence" is the opinions of others, considered to be authorities, then their opinion is the limit under which one stays.

And yes, I do think and make up what I say.

In regards to the two forces, all my theories are based on the stuff that modern science has put into the superstitions section of the library. Things like the four elements, which are thought of as simplistic and stupid.
But, for example they represent the four basic extremes of the two aspects of the background forces of matter, by the formula AB, Ab, aB, ab.

 

You have told us how you arrived at your thinking. you have not, however, provided any evidence or a structured line of reasoning. do you plan to do so? If not, your posting here is pointless unless you get some kind of sexual frisson from it.

 

given the size of the sun and earth's tiny size and dependency and closeness, sure there is a connection

 

Did you read the article on abc? What do you think?
I am uneducated, what and how does one provide "evidence?"

 

The article is not stating anything new. It does refute your contention, you claim;

"For years I have been observing and saying that the sun is cooler deeper down into its surface."

Unfortunately you aparently did not understand the article and assumed that the slower transport of the photons deep in the sun is due to temperature instead of the real driver which is density. I suggest you reread the aritle carefully. The article clearly states that it is hotter the deeper you go towards the center of the sun.

Evidence would be something concrete, such as observations or experiments that support you contention. A peer reviewed article that supports your contentions would be an great example.

 

The 'slower sun' underneath is just the start. If I am correct they will eventually discover that it does the above and gets darker and cooler.
Thanks for the tip on evidence, now I understand that if there is no peer support, ones opinion must be questionable, but if a whole lot of heads get together and agree then it must be so.
In your opinion, what causes sun spots and why are they cooler, and why do they dip below the surface, and why is the opposite true with flares?
If your opinion is the same as text books, please don't repeat it.

 

Going by this comment, I understand that at the moment you are not capable of a sensible conversation.

 

Your conjecture does not even pass the 'giggle test'. You clearly have not done any research and do not even understand the most fundemental basics of star mechanics. How is it even possible that you actually believe that you have some new idea that thousand of scientist that are way smarther than you or I and way way more educated than you or I could have missed.

You are making a guess at something and it is a poor guess.

You realize that the sun is powered my fusion - right? You realized that the only place were the conditions are right for significant fusion to occur is in the core - right. So if the heat in being produced in the core, and heat moves from hot to cold how in the name of hell could the lower layers of of the sun be colder?

 

I don't believe half of what scientists conclude about star mechanics, but if I tried this would be a comedy show.
Just now though, I see you leaving yourself out of the picture again, you don't want to give your opinion apart from the group, where is your mind and freedom? Sunspots and flares - what is happening?

 

You demonstrate mixture of arrogance and ignorance that is rather sad. I fear the comedy show would be you attempting to understand what the scientist are saying.

I realize that you think a great way to show your "mind and your freedom" is to make embarrasingly absurd conjectures based on a deep seated ignornace of science - but I beg to differ. I have an eductation. I have taken astronomy classes. I have personally ground a mirror for a telescope. I have read several astronomy text books. I agree with the vast majority of the theories about star mechanics - because they are logical and makes sense.

For anyone who has any knowledge of astronomy and physics your ideas are just plain childish and silly.

 

Having your own mind does come with the risk of being misunderstood, but you cannot claim to have a scientific mind if you merely reflect the thoughts of others. This does not mean that you have to go against the grain just for the sake of standing out. I am aware that my ideas go against the grain, and I am reluctant to put them forward for that reason. As I said before, I question my views daily, but it seems like I cannot deny what I have discovered.

For eg, I do not think the stars are indebted to a local fuel supply, be it wax, wood, electricity or atomic activity. Can you see how the theories depend on technology of the time?

I do not disagree with most observations, but with the conclusions. I see sunspots as evidence that the sun is not hotter deeper down. Science has made up its mind on that, based on the assumption that the sun needs a hotter interior to exist, and that eventually it will turn into a red dwarf. The sun and stars do not operate like that, and most star mechanics are false assumptions.
The appearance of sun spots is a mystery to science, but only so because of their view and nothing else.
If I took the view that atomic explosions and fusions were the cause of the stars burning, yes I would go down that road too.

 

Correct. Nor does it mean that you make stuff up that has no basis in reality, and is not testable or observable.

OK. Where does their energy come from, then?

Then how do you explain our observations of stellar evolution? (including stellar creation, senescence and nova)

You can go down any road you like. But no one will take you seriously if you do not offer a self-consistent and testable alternative.