It's still a theory the solar flare, it has to be big enough and a direct hit. And further the amount of damage is absolutely debatable. How much of the planet is hit, where, what damage. Theoretical. You're citing every 12k years, nope. That isn't factual at all. There have been supervolcanoes in that time period. And supposedly cosmic impact, meteor, comet.
The Sun is in a cycle currently, but some of this cycle has been documented in the last 12k years with both periods of warming and cooling occurring.
You've got a theory. Where solar activity and alignment are causing concerns. But I'm not completely buying that link at all. Another 2 more weeks.
More immediately back to nukes. Unpredictable apart from Russia could lose a lot more support, both at home and abroad. But if Russia are only looking to win and if they are pressed, they are a definitive option not to be so easily dismissed. Why would it draw a direct nuclear war? It wouldn't. In fact it would be much easier to condemn Russia internationally, if they are localised to the current conflict. But as they have gone off, yes there is a risk it could draw Nato further into it. They might support the Ukraine even more directly, because any international response would call to send investigators, decying war crimes. Although who knows. At this stage the odds of their usage only increases. Because Russia has acquired territory under attack, and it will defend it under its sovereignty. It is a nuclear power and it has that option, an increasing consideration when under attack.
Well yes, you should understand the theory before completing your purchase. There's info in the playlist that lays it out, with the evidence that's claimed to support it. Maybe kook science, maybe not.
Seems far more reasonable, if not likely(?), that the next escalation tier would be direct strikes against the decision center in Kiev to simply behead the enemy. Nukes might be considered for say, a large incursion of NATO forces from the west. That would get a lot of attention.
It is a reasonable assessment and a very good presentation. But I don't think it's accurate, there are far too many variables. Yes I agree there is orbit, alignment, conjunctions. Perhaps these cause it to flare or nova. But I don't think it quite works like this. Namely that timing. Every 12,000 years the sun goes poof. Just because it does. No. Sorry. I don't accept that. Because it doesn't. It's a Sun not a freaking stopwatch. It would react differently every single time. Varying. And there is a lot of space between us and a direct hit. Even if we're bang in alignment. And depending on how we're facing is how much damage that causes. Even on a nova. However I don't rule anything out. But you'll find there is a lot more pressure the Sun can cause on our plates, streams, caps, shield, and fields. These can react. As they have in that period causing the ice-age or supervolcano. Besides we might have possibly had impact as well. All within the last 100k. So no. I won't accept the nova is that highlighted event, occurring in that frequency. I don't accept it is just our Sun that is fully responsible.
Hmm no, not the ICBM, but it could be. Whoops. But then, we're talking fallout. Then we're talking a much larger international response. Fallout causes, it gets grim. Tactically there are smaller payload nukes, cruise primarily, that could fully cripple Ukraine, in limited strikes. They'd draw huge condemnation. But unlike a city killer, ICBM, are namely hitting military. Not everything else.
But who knows the longer this drags. Nukes are an option that can be deployed and increase in factor the more this conflict continues.
But I don't think it quite works like this. Namely that timing. Every 12,000 years the sun goes poof. Just because it does. No. Sorry. I don't accept that.
Same here. Because that's not how the theory works.
It's not a stopwatch and it's subjective to how any cycle occurs. If indeed there is a definite pattern. There isn't at all. Apart from inconclusive events have impacted our geology in the last 100k years. Of this the supervolcano, ice-age, and impact or nova. Until even the geology has been fed into narratives. The main narrative of evolution. It needed neanderthals in caves from an ice-age without it recognising impact, because no civilization existed prior to cavemen. Despite documenting the Supervolcano.
This is remarkably laughable in the British Natural History museum. One exhibit claims out of Africa, the next claims a supervolcano, another theory was the supervolcano caused evolution. Finally there was this other fucking ice-age after. You can literally go to the exhibits from the paleontology monkey skulls, reading the labels, going into the geology volcanoes and earthquakes, or which ever first, and the labels clearly conflict in the information provided. Hilariously. Above. Supervolcano ice-aged them out of Africa? Did it evolve the monkeys? Or did they leave their caves after an ice age and build pyramids next? I mean it's the thing to do after being in a cave. But prior to them leaving Africa there was this big huge eruption. Maybe they changed those labels now. God damn, it was ridiculous.
Okay, but no. There is no definite answer, just contrary theories.
It's still a theory the solar flare, it has to be big enough and a direct hit. And further the amount of damage is absolutely debatable. How much of the planet is hit, where, what damage. Theoretical. You're citing every 12k years, nope. That isn't factual at all. There have been supervolcanoes in that time period. And supposedly cosmic impact, meteor, comet.
The Sun is in a cycle currently, but some of this cycle has been documented in the last 12k years with both periods of warming and cooling occurring.
You've got a theory. Where solar activity and alignment are causing concerns. But I'm not completely buying that link at all. Another 2 more weeks.
More immediately back to nukes. Unpredictable apart from Russia could lose a lot more support, both at home and abroad. But if Russia are only looking to win and if they are pressed, they are a definitive option not to be so easily dismissed. Why would it draw a direct nuclear war? It wouldn't. In fact it would be much easier to condemn Russia internationally, if they are localised to the current conflict. But as they have gone off, yes there is a risk it could draw Nato further into it. They might support the Ukraine even more directly, because any international response would call to send investigators, decying war crimes. Although who knows. At this stage the odds of their usage only increases. Because Russia has acquired territory under attack, and it will defend it under its sovereignty. It is a nuclear power and it has that option, an increasing consideration when under attack.
Well yes, you should understand the theory before completing your purchase. There's info in the playlist that lays it out, with the evidence that's claimed to support it. Maybe kook science, maybe not.
Seems far more reasonable, if not likely(?), that the next escalation tier would be direct strikes against the decision center in Kiev to simply behead the enemy. Nukes might be considered for say, a large incursion of NATO forces from the west. That would get a lot of attention.
It is a reasonable assessment and a very good presentation. But I don't think it's accurate, there are far too many variables. Yes I agree there is orbit, alignment, conjunctions. Perhaps these cause it to flare or nova. But I don't think it quite works like this. Namely that timing. Every 12,000 years the sun goes poof. Just because it does. No. Sorry. I don't accept that. Because it doesn't. It's a Sun not a freaking stopwatch. It would react differently every single time. Varying. And there is a lot of space between us and a direct hit. Even if we're bang in alignment. And depending on how we're facing is how much damage that causes. Even on a nova. However I don't rule anything out. But you'll find there is a lot more pressure the Sun can cause on our plates, streams, caps, shield, and fields. These can react. As they have in that period causing the ice-age or supervolcano. Besides we might have possibly had impact as well. All within the last 100k. So no. I won't accept the nova is that highlighted event, occurring in that frequency. I don't accept it is just our Sun that is fully responsible.
Hmm no, not the ICBM, but it could be. Whoops. But then, we're talking fallout. Then we're talking a much larger international response. Fallout causes, it gets grim. Tactically there are smaller payload nukes, cruise primarily, that could fully cripple Ukraine, in limited strikes. They'd draw huge condemnation. But unlike a city killer, ICBM, are namely hitting military. Not everything else.
But who knows the longer this drags. Nukes are an option that can be deployed and increase in factor the more this conflict continues.
Same here. Because that's not how the theory works.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0MXv1vuF_g (10:25)
Here's a review of the mechanism that replaces 'just because'. Link below is a playlist that lays out the whole shebang.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihwoIlxHI3Q&list=PLHSoxioQtwZf1-8QeggXIVdZ-abyJXaO1
If the catastrophe cycle theory is faulty, you'll be able to detect that here.
It's not a stopwatch and it's subjective to how any cycle occurs. If indeed there is a definite pattern. There isn't at all. Apart from inconclusive events have impacted our geology in the last 100k years. Of this the supervolcano, ice-age, and impact or nova. Until even the geology has been fed into narratives. The main narrative of evolution. It needed neanderthals in caves from an ice-age without it recognising impact, because no civilization existed prior to cavemen. Despite documenting the Supervolcano.
This is remarkably laughable in the British Natural History museum. One exhibit claims out of Africa, the next claims a supervolcano, another theory was the supervolcano caused evolution. Finally there was this other fucking ice-age after. You can literally go to the exhibits from the paleontology monkey skulls, reading the labels, going into the geology volcanoes and earthquakes, or which ever first, and the labels clearly conflict in the information provided. Hilariously. Above. Supervolcano ice-aged them out of Africa? Did it evolve the monkeys? Or did they leave their caves after an ice age and build pyramids next? I mean it's the thing to do after being in a cave. But prior to them leaving Africa there was this big huge eruption. Maybe they changed those labels now. God damn, it was ridiculous.
Okay, but no. There is no definite answer, just contrary theories.