Critical Thinking

[snowblind]

This is the Russian perspective on earth changes. Hard

facts that are going

unreported in America.The atmospheres of the planets

are changing. Dr.

Dmitriev's work shows that the planets themselves are

changing. They are

undergoing changes in their atmospheres.



For example the Martian atmosphere is getting sizably

thicker than it was

before. The Mars observer probe in 1997 lost one of

its mirrors, which

caused it to crash, because the atmosphere was about

twice as dense as they

calculated, and basically the wind on that little

mirror was so high that

it blew it right off the device.



Earth's moon is growing an atmosphere



Also, the moon is growing an atmosphere that's made up

of a compound

Dmitriev refers to as ''Natrium.'' Dmitriev says that,

around the moon,


 


Natrium is the latin word for salt,
which turns to vapor 97.42 kJ·mol−1




there is this 6,000-kilometer-deep layer of Natrium

that wasn't there before.


 


6,000k =
3 728miles that would make it a very deep atmosphere, considering
earth’s atmosphere is estimated at 1000km or 621 miles





And we're having this kind of change in Earth's

atmosphere in the upper

levels, where HO gas is forming that wasn't there


 


HO is not a gas it is an alcohol
group on a molecule, as in EtOH or ethanol, which denotes an alcohol
group




before; it simply did not

exist in the quantity that it does now. It's not

related to global warming

and it's not related to CFCs or fluorocarbon emissions

or any of that

stuff. It's just showing up.



Magnetic fields and brightness of the planets are

changing. The planets are

experiencing sizable changes in their overall

brightness. Venus, for

example, is showing us marked increases in its overall

brightness. Jupiter

has gotten to have such a high energetic charge that

there is actually a

visible tube of ionizing radiation that's formed

between its moon, Io. You

can actually see the luminous energy tube in

photographs that have been

taken more recently..


 


Are these photos taken from earth
or from space?  It is possible that the
brightness is due to atmospheric changes on earth, ie: a clear night, after a
rain will make the stars and planets appear more clear



And the planets are having a change in their fields.

The magnetic fields

are becoming stronger. Jupiter's magnetic field has

more than doubled.

Uranus's magnetic field is changing. Neptune's

magnetic field is

increasing. These planets are becoming brighter. Their

magnetic field

strength is getting higher. Their atmospheric

qualities are changing.


 


Magnetic shifts are common on every planet and are usually
benign.  We have shifted on our axis by
3 inches since the Chilean earthquake. Our magnetic field reverses about every
200k years and the time between the reversals the magnetic field fluctuates
greatly.


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... _flip.html


to find out more.


 


Uranus and Neptune appear to have had recent pole

shifts. When the Voyager

2 space probe flew past Uranus and Neptune, the

apparent north and south

magnetic poles were sizably offset from where the

rotational pole was. In

one case, it was 50 degrees off, and in the other case

the difference was

around 40 degrees, both of which are pretty big

changes.


 


There could be many pole shifts on
other planets depending on what materials the core of the planet consists
of.  Magnetic fields are caused by the
metallic contents of the molten core of a planet spinning, just like an
alternator.  Nothing more nothing less



The overall changes could essentially be broken down

into three categories:

Energy field changes, luminosity changes, and

atmospheric changes.



Overall volcanic activity has increased 500 percent

since

1975


 


The methodology of reporting
volcanic activity changed in 1974, which could have effected reporting of
volcanic activity


 


http://www.volcano.si.edu...cfm#ExplanationofContent


 


 On the Earth, we're
seeing the changes even more

completely.



For example, Michael Mandeville has done research that

has shown that the

overall volcanic activity on the Earth since

1875 has increased by roughly 500 percent. The overall

earthquake activity

has increased by 400 percent just since

1973.



Natural disasters increased 410 percent between 1963

and

1993



Dr. Dmitriev did a very elaborate calculation of

natural disasters. He

showed that if you compare the years 1963 through

1993, the overall amount

of natural disasters of all different kinds - whether

you are talking

hurricanes, typhoons, mud slides, tidal waves, you

name it - have increased

by 410 percent.



The Sun's magnetic field increased by 230 percent

since

1901


 


This phenomenon could be attributed
to the cyclical nature of the universe…not to some end time apocalypse.  What statistical measure did Dr. Dmitriev
use?

There's a study by Dr. Mike Lockwood from Rutherford

******on National

Laboratories in California, who has been investigating

the Sun. He has

discovered that since 1901, the overall magnetic field

of the Sun has

become 230 percent stronger than it was before.


 


Before when?  And is it a cyclical change?  


 


http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2009Q1/ ... trends.pdf


 fascinating reading



More than just Earth Changes



So, all in all, what we're seeing is a lot more than

just what they call

Earth Changes. Some people get into the idea that

there is an interaction

between the Earth and the Sun that's going on here.

Very, very few people

are aware of the work that is being done in the

Russian National Academy of

Sciences in Siberia, specifically in Novosibirsk,

where they are doing this

research. They've come to the conclusion that the only

possible thing that

could be causing this energetic change all throughout

the Solar System is

that we are moving into an area of energy that is

different - that is higher.


 


Very exotic, spooky, and of course untraceable, and
unpublished making it absolutely irrefutable. 
These “facts” should be immediately suspect.  I suspect this is another “Photon Belt” insinuation.  Insinuated because it has been debunked.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_belt



The glowing plasma at the leading edge of our Solar

System has recently

increased 1000 percent



Now, check this out. The Sun itself has a magnetic

field, of course, and

that magnetic field creates an egg around the Solar

System, which is known

as the heliosphere. The heliosphere is shaped like a

teardrop, with the

long and thin end of the drop pointing in the opposite

direction from the

direction that we're traveling. It's just like a

comet, where the tail is

always pointing away from the Sun.


 


Factually incorrect.  The Heliosphere is shaped like a ballerina
skirt


http://en.wikipedia.org/w...eliospheric_current_sheet



The Russians have looked at the leading edge of this

heliosphere, and they

have observed glowing, excited plasma energy there.

This plasma energy used

to be 10 astronomical units deep (an astronomical unit

is the distance from

the Earth to the Sun, 93,000,000 miles). So ten

astronomical units

represents the normal thickness of this glowing energy

that we used to see

at the front end of the Solar System.



Today, that glowing plasma has gone to 100

astronomical units deep.

Although Dmitriev's paper does not give an exact

timeline, we can assume (Why can we assume
anything?  There are no events to
substantiate this claim, only assumption)

that this increase happened in the same 1963 to 1993

period as the increase

he found in natural disasters. Whenever it happened,

that's a 1,000 percent

increase in the overall brightness of the energy at

the front end of the

Solar System. (Reference? Or assumption?)



And this means that the Solar System itself is moving

into an area where

the energy is more highly charged. That higher-

charged energy is in turn

exciting the plasma and causing more of it to form, so

you see more

luminosity, more brightness. This energy is then

flowing into the Sun,

which in turn emits the energy and spreads it out

along its equatorial

plane, which is called the Ecliptic.


 


The Ecliptic is is the apparent
path that the Sun traces out in the sky during the year, appearing to move eastwards on an imaginary
spherical surface, the celestial sphere, relative to the (almost) fixed
stars. In more accurate terms, it is the intersection of the celestial
sphere with the ecliptic plane, which is the geometric plane containing the mean orbit of the Earth around the Sun. (The ecliptic plane
should be distinguished from the invariable
plane of the solar system, which is perpendicular to the vector sum of the angular
momenta of all planetary orbital planes, to which Jupiter is the
main contributor. The present ecliptic plane is inclined to the invariable
plane by about 1.5°.)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecliptic



This in turn is saturating interplanetary space, which

causes the solar

emissions to travel more quickly and charge up the

energy on the planets.



And this is conscious energy that is changing how
the

planet works, how it

functions, and what kind of life it supports. The

harmonics of the DNA

spiral itself are altering. That's the real, hidden

cause of spontaneous

mass evolutions in previous epochs of time.


 


What does this mean?  That the energy at play in the universe is
conscious?  What are the harmonics of
DNA?  Mass evolutions?  There have been pockets of evolution that we
do not know about?



All this is happening all at the same time, and it's

all working up to a

crescendo where there is going to be a sudden shift.



In other words, we will get to the point where we are

so far into the new

level of energy that there will be a sudden expansion

of the basic harmonic

wavelengths that the Sun emits as it radiates energy

out of itself. This

increase in energy emission will change the basic

nature of all matter in

the Solar System. The planets are pushed slightly

farther away from the Sun

and the atoms and molecules that make them up actually

expand in terms of

their physical size.


 


References please, I have not heard of any of this work.


 


Ok, Im not trying to be a complete
**** about all of this…but is anyone really reading with a critical eye some
of the **** that is out there?  No
wonder the “new age” movement makes us all look like a bunch of blissed out
buffoons…because we sound like that. 
None of this is based in any real science.  This is word salad.  How
are we going to make a difference if we have no credibility?  And Yes, this irritates me to no end.  Why? 
Because we know that something has changed, and we struggle to explain
it.  I am advocating that we educate
ourselves to at least be critical ESPECIALLY about things that are this “out
there” so we don’t sound like a bunch of idiots spouting that the sky is
falling.


Galileo Galilei: "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God
who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to
forgo their use."_______________________________________________

[Summer Dawne]

.

[snowblind]

What do you mean SD? In terms that everyone can understand please.

[Summer Dawne]

.

[snowblind]

I am not aware of such research, are you saying that you are against research and critical thinking? Are you against scientific research that appears to be frivolous, or just science in general? I think it is important to have a rational discourse about issues that are impacting us right now. Nothing can be accomplished if we hold ourselves in an Ivory Tower not willing to get into the fray, and if we cannot grasp the verbiage of the people with the money to study these phenomena...then the phenomena will not be studied rigorously or seriously.

[snowblind]

This critical thinking is akin to autolysis. Looking at beliefs and tearing them apart till the only thing that remains is YOUR truth. Not mine, not Carlos', Buddha's, or ___________ insert deity/Guru/Nagual here. This is a powerful tool that will not only allow you to uncover the lies about self, but peer behind the curtain of self.

[Mornings Son]

Critical thinking involves determining the meaning and
significance of what is observed or expressed, or, concerning a given
inference or argument, determining whether there is adequate
justification to accept the conclusion as true. Hence, Fisher & Scriven define critical thinking as "Skilled, active,
interpretation and evaluation of observations, communications,
information, and argumentation."[1]
Moore & Parker define it more naturally as the careful, deliberate
determination of whether one should accept, reject, or suspend judgment
about a claim and the degree of confidence with which
one accepts or rejects it.[2]

Critical thinking gives due consideration to the evidence,
the context of judgment, the relevant criteria for making the
judgment well, the applicable methods or techniques for forming the
judgment, and the applicable theoretical constructs for understanding
the problem and the question at hand. Critical thinking employs not only
logic
but broad intellectual
criteria such as clarity, credibility,
accuracy, precision, relevance,
depth, breadth, significance and fairness.

In contemporary usage "critical" has the connotation of expressing
disapproval,[3]
which is not always true of critical thinking. A critical evaluation of
an argument, for example, might conclude that it is valid.
*****

HOW TO DO:
There is no simple way to develop the intellectual traits of a
critical thinker. One important way requires developing one's
intellectual empathy and intellectual humility. The first requires
extensive experience in entering and accurately constructing points of
view toward which one has negative feelings. The second requires
extensive experience in identifying the extent of one's own ignorance
in a wide variety of subjects (ignorance whose admission leads one to
say, "I thought I knew, but I merely believed"). One
becomes less biased and more broad-minded when one becomes more
intellectually empathic and intellectually humble, and that involves
time, deliberate practice and commitment. It involves considerable
personal and intellectual development.

To develop one's critical thinking traits, one should learn the art
of suspending judgment (for example, when reading a novel,
watching a movie, engaging in dialogical or dialectical
reasoning). Ways of doing this include adopting a perceptive rather than
judgmental orientation; that is, avoiding moving from perception to
judgment as one applies critical thinking to an issue.

One should become aware of one's own fallibility by:
accepting that everyone has subconscious
biases, and accordingly questioning any reflexive judgments;adopting an ego-sensitive and, indeed, intellectually humble
stance;recalling previous beliefs that one once held strongly but now
rejects;tendency towards group think; the amount your belief system is
formed by what those around you say instead of what you have personally
witnessed;realizing one still has numerous blind
spots, despite the foregoing.
An integration of insights from the critical thinking literature and
cognitive psychology literature is the "Method of Argument and Heuristic
Analysis." This technique illustrates the influences of heuristics and
biases on human decision making along with the influences of thinking
critically about reasons and claims.
******************************
It can be used as a stalking metode

[snowblind]

EXACTLY! Thank you for putting it so succinctly!

[Mornings Son]

fro wiki: (our old friend)

Theravada (buddhism) promotes the concept of Vibhajjavada (Pali), literally "Teaching of Analysis." This doctrine says that insight must come from the aspirant's experience, critical investigation, and reasoning instead of by blind faith; however, the scriptures of the Theravadan tradition also emphasize heeding the advice of the wise, considering such advice and evaluation of one's own experiences to be the two tests by which practices should be judged.

[Mornings Son]

In a way I find this in the line of Critical thinking, but with the adding of elder experienced brothers and sisters contribution

[Guest]