- The Astrological Signs
- The Sun's magnetic field is about to flip
- "Get a Straight Answer"
- Recommended for you
I think the best way to grasp this Uranian type shift is to look at some traditional male and female preferences and behavior. How many men do you know who can take hours chatting with a friend about relationships? How many women spend an entire day tinkering in the garage with various tools and projects? How many women participate in the new and dangerous?
- Table of contents;
- astrology new moon january 5 2020.
- scorpio indian daily horoscope?
- december 18 horoscope 2019 libra.
- Zodiac Elements.
- michele knight weekly horoscope 19 january 2020!
How many men spend a day at the mall trying on clothes for fun and relaxation? How many all-female Sunday afternoon football parties have you been to? The earth is peopled with two genders, after all. So far only one of these genders is capable of bearing children. I think that because we live in a comparatively aware, technological culture, we too easily become oblivious to the masses of men and women in less developed countries who still conform quite closely to gender prototypes.
The book describes how each gender perceives and acts, how men and women respond to life situations, and how they should treat each other to avoid hurt feelings or out-and-out war and divorce. As such, the book is a useful tool for understanding the polarity of the sidereal zodiac signs. The general polarity interpretation according to Tropical astrologers is that the masculine signs Aries, Gemini, Leo, Libra, Sagittarius, and Aquarius are outgoing and interested on what is outside themselves. Their main focus is on experiences and people external to themselves.
In the sidereal zodiac, these meanings are reversed.
The actions of men are geared toward developing power and skills. Self-satisfaction and a sense of power come from personal success and accomplishment. Men are interested in news, weather, sports, objects, gadgets, technology. Men easily become preoccupied with problem solving. We can ask what signs have the reputation for being practical and competent in the material sense? The tropical Earth signs should come to mind, whose lords are Venus, Mercury and Saturn. Tropical Taurus: stable, consistent, persistent; concentrated energies, at home in the physical world; disinclined to be sociable.
Mars is probably the planet that is most comfortable with the physical world; Mars can be very persistent and stubborn when it wants to be. The concept of male polarity takes care of the lack of motivation to be sociable, and the exalted Sun easily concentrates and consolidates its energies. Tropical Virgo: As sidereal Leo , this sign is very content to involve itself in its chosen work. As a sign of male polarity, the quality of creative work is much more important than praise and approval from others.
Tropical Capricorn is associated with the father complex. It wants to be effective in whatever it does. Capricorn is related to authority, implementing the rules of society, big business and government. The attributes of this sign belong to sidereal Sagittarius. The ruler of Sagittarius, Jupiter was the father of the Gods who wrote the rule book for everyone else.
As a sign of male polarity, Sagittarius is concerned with measures that can be practically applied in the real world. This sign is also extremely good at mobilizing its energies in the chosen direction to achieve the desired goal. The third sign Libra is the exaltation of Saturn, but is ruled by the feminine Venus. Only the sidereal Aries triad is 'all masculine. A man under stress or working on a problem will become very quiet, retreat to his cave and tune out the world. He will focus one-pointedly on his problem until it is solved.
Asking someone else for help shows how weak and incompetent he is. If you offer him advice, he feels humiliated. A man wants to achieve his objectives by himself. But they do sound somewhat like the Tropical earth and water signs, which can be quite uncommunicative and internalized. Tropical Cancer sidereal Gemini can be moody and sensitive; Tropical Scorpio sidereal Libra is called secretive and sometimes anti-social; Tropical Pisces sidereal Aquarius can get lost within itself.
Women are preoccupied with relationships, and like to anticipate the needs of others. They enjoy being helped by others and want to help other people themselves. Women are happy when they have people who love them to share their feelings with. If a woman gives advice and suggestions, it shows she cares.
Women generally like to nurture relationships, and try to live together in community and cooperation. In general, women enjoy talking. A woman under stress tends to get more and more overwhelmed and emotionally distraught. I was unaware finding the true mechanics of any system was not about "convenience" for the scientists but to truly understand a system.
How can you truly examine a 3D system in 2D? In addition, with the Sun traveling as it does, the planets must orbit the sun without Einstein's self imposed speed limit for gravity. If it weren't the case the orbits would quickly degrade. I have never found anything like that in serious books or articles, or had any physics lecturers that would espouse such a belief. How did you deduce that?!?!
The Astrological Signs
Reference Please! It's a bit a tiny bit like if you put two bar magnets end-to-end with the same poles in the middle e. N-S S-N. Do you have a monopole? Yes And it's pretty obvious that this is not a stable configuration - but just an intermittent state towards a 'regular' alignment.
The Sun's magnetic field is about to flip
I agree with what you say, but I would qualify that statement about the monopole. It would appear that you can have 2 polarities, but still have a monopole in the case of a sphere. You're still treating the magnetic field as a single entity. Each component acts just as you would expect, but they are not all of equal magnitude. Let's take a grossly simplified example: Pretend the sun's magnetic field has two sources; two giant electromagnets inside the sun, one above the core and one below the core north and south of the core if you prefer.
As you know, the strength and polarity of an electromagnet depend on the direction and amplitude of current flowing through them. So, if we start out with both of them being equal, then the sun as a whole will have a perfect dipole from our POV. Decrease the power on one and the poles will be lop-sided. If they are equal but opposite, they'll cancel out between them at the core and have the same polarity at both poles two north or two south poles.
- The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.
- libra sign compatibility;
- virgo 9 november 2019 horoscope.
- The Four Elements and Three Modalities?
- december 30 2019 birthday astrology scorpio.
As antialias pointed out, this is not a stable configuration. I would like to further point out that it takes a LOT of potential energy to force the polarity into this unstable configuration. It basically goes from the stable state into an unstable state, which represents a huge decrease in entropy, which nature doesn't like entropy always naturally seeks to increase, so that any system will be at its lowest possible energy state before it is stable.
I think even the barycenter theory wouldn't work out. If that was the source, then this flip would affect the angular momentum of the solar system, since that would be the source of the energy. Since this happens every 11 years, I don't think it would be sustainable on stellar time scales. It would eventually stop itself.
"Get a Straight Answer"
I wonder how the numbers work out exactly? Qstar The sun's north pole has already changed sign, while the south pole is racing to catch up how does this not mean the sun currently has two poles of the same sign? Having two areas of opposite polarity doesn't break any laws of nature. It's not a single field. If you view it from far enough out, such as the boundary of the magnetoshpere, it will be a normal dipole as you suggest.
The variations they're talking about in this story are local variations within the complex soup of fields that compose the total field. Cue Alex Jones in Already my fb timeline is buzzing with pseudoscience. Re: "HUH??? You'll get his works, as well as an analysis by Miles Mathis.
Recommended for you
Van Flandern's paper starts The most amazing thing I was taught as a graduate student of celestial mechanics at Yale in the s was that all gravitational interactions between bodies in all dynamical systems had to be taken as instantaneous. This seemed unacceptable on two counts. In the first place, it seemed to be a form of "action at a distance". Perhaps no one has so elegantly expressed the objection to such a concept better than Sir Isaac Newton [ But mediation requires propagation, and finite bodies should be incapable of propagation at infinite speeds since that would require infinite energy.
So instantaneous gravity seemed to have an element of magic to it. The second objection was that we had all been taught that Einstein's special relativity SR , an experimentally well-established theory, proved that nothing could propagate in forward time at a speed greater than that of light in a vacuum. Indeed, as astronomers we were taught to calculate orbits using instantaneous forces; then extract the position of some body along its orbit at a time of interest, and [ It seemed incongruous to allow for the finite speed of light from the body to the Earth, but to take the effect of Earth's gravity on that same body as propagating from here to there instantaneously.
Yet that was the required procedure to get the correct answers. These objections were certainly not new when I raised them. They have been raised and answered thousands of times in dozens of different ways over the years since general relativity GR was set forth in Even today in discussions of gravity in USENET newsgroups on the Internet, the most frequently asked question and debated topic is "What is the speed of gravity?
Yet, anyone with a computer and orbit computation or numerical integration software can verify the consequences of introducing a delay into gravitational interactions. The effect on computed orbits is usually disastrous because conservation of angular momentum is destroyed Isn't it strange that we expect our professional scientists to unify physics without teaching the students of physics all of the controversies associated with our dominant theories?
It really begs the question of what these constructs "consensus" and "anti-science" really mean No, there is a magnetic "north" pole and a magnetic "south" pole. By convention they have opposite signs. Catching up is referring to concentrating at the geographic "north" and "south" which for the sun is a misnomer. At times past, the Earth's geographic north pole would have attracted the "south" pointer of a compass. The Earth hasn't flipped, the magnetic poles reversed. It's a poorly understood phenomenon as far as mechanisms go.
A monopole is a hypothetical fundamental single particle. A single particle, not a mass of particles. Are you saying that the remaining dipole, being off center will show one of its poles but not the other because one pole is buried inside the sun? I hope you arent saying that the dipole consists of 2 separate fields.
Why bother asking these obviously "political" questions when we can plainly see that the man was insane? Message to the students: Whatever you do, please remember that at the end of the day you will be working for some large institution. Just as they are not paying you to be "mavericky", your graduate program professors are watching the types of questions you ask to see if you really do "think like a scientist".
Here's a tip: If you want to fit into this culture, you're going to want to avoid asking the political questions. Professionals don't do politics. Just do the work you're assigned, and you'll have a bright future. The madness has spread to him, Noam Chomsky and the thousand or so other researchers who took a stand against the AIP. This story doesn't have anything to do with propagation of gravity. That's an impressive wall-o-text though, and an interesting topic of cosmological theory.
The nature and propagation of gravity is at the heart of why we don't yet have a GUT. Nothing seems to work in all situations without creating at least one type of paradox in some other situations. You could argue in circles about it forever. For now, the best we have are partial solutions, and when using any of them, an educated professional will understand the limitations. If you're looking for absolute truth, then go to church and choose to believe; science doesn't deal in absolutes, since no theory can ever be proven absolutely correct. It's like a bad 80's sitcom that won't go away.
Do you ever discuss science? What's really amazing as ever single person who questions what you believe as being a "crank", "crackpot", or heavy drug user. Hal Arp is another "brilliant scientist" by your estimation, who "went crackpot" as soon as he changed his position. Strangely, his position changed AFTER observation didn't agree with theory, just as one would expect from a scientist.
Shortly after his opinion changed, and after one of his papers "Companion Galaxies on the Ends of Spiral Arms" was rejected simply because the editor of 'Astrophysical Journal' at the time Chandrasekhar stated "this exceeds my imagination", his telescope time was taken away and was forced out by his "peers". That's how "science" works these days. Yes I dont see how you can say you would have the same same magnetic sign at both poles. If the 2 magnets are equal they would cancel. You could not have a north pole at both ends, nor could you have a north pole at one end and no south pole.
If one is stronger than the other then it would dominate and you would still end up with a north and a south pole of equal strength. Not suggesting monopoles here, but I just dont see how any combination of additive fields could ever yield one pole changing before the other. Ok, now I think I see. When they say the south is catching up they dont mean the south magnetic pole they mean the south geographic pole.
One pole is not "changing" before the other. It's a poorly understood phenomenon. But think of it as a "fluid" magnet. Not a rigid "bar" magnet. The container of this magnet does not change it's orientation with the universe, but the fluid inside rearranges it's alignment. Like bending a bar magnet and twisting it into a horseshoe or pretzel shape, the poles can move around, theoretically they could be side by side in the same hemisphere. Or one could be on the geographic pole while the other is on the equator. They are subject to migration, we have observed this in the Sun, other stars and planets.
They are related mechanically but can be different dynamically. Re: "Nothing seems to work in all situations without creating at least one type of paradox in some other situations. There is the technical paradox, but there also appear to be institutional paradoxes Professionalism involves thinking within the confines of an assigned framework, yet scientists are generally assumed by the public to not shy away from questioning assumptions. Critical thinking absolutely demands questioning assumptions, but the questioning of certain important assumptions in science consistently produces derision and defensiveness.
Unification would seem to involve both critical and creative aspects of theory-making, yet creativity is generally undermined by professionalism. So, is it that the paradox is purely a technical one? There is the technical paradox, but there also appear to be institutional paradoxes There's a huge difference between a reasonable challenge and wild conjecture, but that's somewhat subjective. I think some people get too hung up in absolutionisms if that's not a word, it should be, lol. For example, just because GR seems to suggest a few things that are hard to believe, some people jump to totally reinvent every key concept of science.
It's like, "oh there's a mistake, so the whole thing is wrong". That's like having a few words spelled wrong in a dictionary and inventing your own language in stead. That just doesn't make sense. To my knowledge, there's only a handful of real theories by real, I mean the kind that has all that mumbo jumbo like math and predictions that match observations that are still even close to viable. The majority of alternative theories have made predictions that are shown not to be true. Some would say this is so with GR, due to dark matter and such, but that's just a matter of opinion.
While dark matter has yet to be observed, that's not the same as observing something that proves it wrong. It's still possible that we will find the dark matter, or some other explanation of why the universe acts like dark matter is there, without tossing out all of GR. There's a huge difference between a reasonable challenge and wild conjecture, but that's somewhat subjective. Don't confuse GR as being science as a whole. Also, when the foundational concepts are erroneous, as many relativist ideas are, then yes it is within reason to cast off the entire concept.
You'll run into problems with field lines in that case the sun ejecta still show marked alignment along field lines - which would look entirely different if you had a monopole. Please note that we don't observe a sun that is all one pole. There's a lot of local south and north poles all over the rest of the surface. Though the more magnetic dipoles you add the less the internal energy required to show the configration we observe.
But it also increases the complexity of the internal model. So we're looking for the simplest model that can give the current picture. This is so bad it's not even wrong. This bizarre wordplay comes from philosophical or religious discussions, where you just have to poke one hole to deflate the whole mass of words. That's not how science works. Any "new" explanation needs to do the old one one better, not just point to a gray area and say that it invalidates the whole structure. This is tantamount to me saying I can build you an equivalent house with better roofing, and just providing a few tiles to replace bad ones.
You can't live in a few tiles - ergo, I have not built you a "better" house - I haven't even built you a house. Aug 08, It has Begun She is correct in one respect, they must stay from the fray, if not right in their theories and conclusions! There is one website wherein the cause of aging and death has been found through mere Word research of the already collected data of God's science, on the website the conclusive information that touches on that subject cannot be denied, and has given all Righteousness to God's word the Bible wherein it was prophesy that in this day Science will have proved God's mystery Revelation Go to the sites mentioned below in past yahoo commentary copied and pasted below It has Begun..
Our Lord's science has proved His mystery and instead His children of Science deny Him while reaping the benefits of His delivered Knowledge! For evidence that He and He alone brought forth Science go to proof. Aug 10, Isn't that special. Aug 11, The problem isn't with GR, but with astronomers who are too lazy to use it and instead use Newtonian Gravity due to it being more 'calculation friendly'. The high non-linearity of GR causes unexpected results when used in weak field calculations as opposed to the strong fields around black holes.