Save or not to save?
Tom, do you think there is any hope in preventing a nuclear holocaust on or a physical destruction of this planet? To me it seems like too many idiots are in charge now (Bush, Blair, Putin, etc...) for any other possibility to happen.
I don't know - are people supposed to be left in peace to elect murderers for leaders? It seems to me the ONLY WAY to prevent there being 8 planets being left in the Solar System is to give them your book to read or to educate on a massive scale and HOPE this works - since people can't be forced to learn...
I know we are supposed to take intellectual care of ourselves first - but what can be done so that not hundreds, not thoudsands (no effect) but millions 'read the info' of universal truth and maybe then we may have a chance?
It's easy to sit back, 'do your bit' and be satisfied. But when 95% of others DON'T EVEN 'KNOW' what's going on in the first place - the situation seems hopeless for the Earth as a whole. To me, the only way to save the physical Earth is 'a massive info campaign' on a global scale. And the execution of such an info campaign seems unrealistic - due to limited people power...
The individuals who actually wish to make a difference ALWAYS see from the start that there is not enough support...so they don't bother or quit after a while - and this seems the greatest failure of humans on Earth.
rafal
The Universe has been designed to be self-perfecting. Those who do not develop enough awareness HAVE TO be given opportunity to destroy themselves for the benefit of those who THINK. If someone somehow arranged to "save" the stupid, idiots would dominate in the Universe very quickly. Have you read this article?
Do you want to save Earth? For WHOM? For those who do not care? For those whose ultimate dream is to win the lottery in order to do nothing, NOT EVEN THINK? For those whose favourite activity is to intoxicate and entertain themselves in order to FORGET Reality? For those who are ready to kill or spend their lives fighting for a piece of land or property? For those who allow their minds to become cluttered with doctrines, misinformation and deceit?For those who prefer to cultivate animal instincts rather than intellect?
One can write a book or an article and make them freely available, but, as you pointed out yourself, no one can force anyone else to READ and Understand them. People have The Freedom of Choice that cannot be disturbed. A "massive campain" is likely to create yet another blind flock. Solution is not in the "campaign" but in Understanding.
Don't worry about the planetary system. Even if Earth explodes, the Moon will still circle the Sun as a planet...
Perhaps it is still possible to save Earth, but ONLY if there are enough people who comprehend the danger and WANT it to be saved. How many do you know? Two?
BTW. Did you know that "Science" (a leading journal), did not publish ANY article about the Earth's inner core since I published this article and informed every geophysicist on the planet about it? Prior to this there was an article in "Science" about the core at least every month... Are scientists getting the point? I wonder how much longer it will take them to admit that their "crystalline core theory" is a dangerous mistake...
Tom
The Earth could be saved so that people who 'don't get' things at the moment could be GIVEN A CHANCE to do so - otherwise, you would be admitting defeat from the start.
If we want society to progress, there has to be a physical Earth that remains to facilitate this progress.
I know that other planets exist that can facilitate learning in a physical world, but what if many intellects wish to choose Earth? I cannot predict what I will choose once I complete my current life.
Shouldn't we at least do whatever is necessary to keep THIS physical Earth going, just in case it would later appeal to us to stay here? Or are we willing to limit ourselves, saying 'this planet doesn't exist anymore (destroyed), so we have to choose a life somewhere else'?
For those of us who 'get it', wouldn't it be nice to have Earth remain in one piece so we could have the choice of remaining here?
(And also about the 'Science' magazine, unless they publish your article, I don't think removing other articles will help...but publishing YOUR article could cause panic...but maybe that's what Earth needs to wake up?)
rafal
The only realistic "chance" that I see is that the non-corrupted part of the scientific community (the best intellects on Earth) unites in developing and supporting the best possible strategy, (technical, practical, social etc...), totally bypassing the corrupt leadership and the associated monetary system. Only such a forum can give people an ALTERNATIVE to consider.
My article was rejected by "Science" in Nov 2000. Since it was published at NUjournal.net it is read by 500-1000 people a week. Sometimes silence is more powerful than talk. At present I do not complain. The Sci community seems informed and the media doesn't confuse simple people. Perhaps this is how it should be.
So far, oceans get warmer (heated from underneath of course, because the Solar energy flux is on the decline). Warmer oceans evaporate more, produce more clouds and rain. More rain on the planetary scale causes widespread flooding. Glaciers melt and many large volcanos on Earth (Fuji,Kilimanjaro etc..) lose their snow caps, all heated from underneath of course. Does anyone measure the rising temperature of the Earth's CRUST?
Tom
IS it any use if people read it but no one does 'anything constructive that produces results'?
And does a group exist already such as you describe that has began the things you describe? Again, unless action happens, words will be empty.
rafal
People do nothing, because they are unwilling or unable to understand what they read.
I have published my research results and continue my studies that explain the Reality. The next article is due soon.
What have YOU done? Do you think that by waiting for someone to do something Earth will be saved?
Tom
One of the key principles in The Universe is the principle of "cause and effect". Whatever people choose to think or not to think, do or not to do, they will have to face all consequences of their choices, even if they cannot imagine any.
Tom
Hi tom,I have been away for 6 months and unable to access the forum. When you say 'does anybody measure the rising temperature of the Earths crust' how do you propose that they do this? I have measured the temperature at 1m below the surface at various locations around Australia and there are large variations. The problem is that there is no reference temperature available to compare the results to. The temperature you measure depends on a number of things such as how deep you measure it. In order to get some handle on variations on the crust temperature you would have to monitor it for a number of years? Maybe you would need to take the temperature say twice a day for at least 1 year and then average the data? Even then how do you know if these temperature are above or below what they should be? What about measuring the temperature of say bore water? At least this would give you a large thermal pool that should not be that susceptible to daily variations in temperature. What are your views on measuring this temperature increase?
David
The most informative would be measurement of the temperature GRADIENT in the direction toward the center of the planet.
If the planetary interior is indeed accumulating heat and overheating this gradient should change, even if the surface temperatures do not.
Hence, the best would be to measure 2 or more temperatures at different depths simultaneously and observe temperature differences. The deeper the better. Water pools can be used, but I guess it is difficult to find several water pools at different depths in one location.
Tom
