 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Astronomy / November 2006Giant Ocean Once Covered Mars!
Saturday, October 28, 2006 Giant ocean once covered Mars "Mars was once covered with a planet-wide ocean, Nasa experts believe. The space agency's two robot rovers have detected widespread deposits of chemicals called sulphates which usually form in liquid water. A new analysis of the data from the buggies, Spirit and Opportunity, lead scientists to believe that the water was part of a sea that covered Mars millions of years ago. The discovery was revealed as the first of the rovers to land on Mars, Spirit, celebrated its 1,000th day on the planet. Opportunity landed three weeks later in January 2004. The latest findings came as a result of research by James Greenwood of Wesleyan University and Ruth Blake of Yale University, in Connecticut. But their work is bad news for alien hunters. The team say the ocean must have been rich in phosphorus, an elements that would normally be mopped up by any living organisms. If life was widespread on Mars, there would not have been so much phosphorus left in the water, they say. The scientists' results are published in the journal Geology." http://skymania.blogspot.com/2006/10/giant-ocean-once-covered-mars.html Double-A >Giant ocean once covered Mars In future times they may say that about Earth, also :> C. > >Giant ocean once covered Mars > > In future times they may say that about Earth, also :> > C. As observed from future Venus? db >> >Giant ocean once covered Mars >> >> In future times they may say that about Earth, also :> >> C. > >As observed from future Venus? Possibly, yes. C. > >> >Giant ocean once covered Mars > >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Possibly, yes. > C. Titan would be a better "observation Post". Too many clouds on Venus. C.H.J. p.s. How's the weather on the other side of "The Big Drink"? >> >> >Giant ocean once covered Mars >> >> In future times they may say that about Earth, also :> >> >As observed from future Venus? >> Possibly, yes. >Titan would be a better "observation Post". Too many clouds on Venus. Colder days may lay ahead ... Titanians are too explosive ;> >p.s. How's the weather on the other side of "The Big Drink"? Cold and ugly! C. HiC For Mars to have had giant oceans it would first have to have a thicker atmosphere like our Earth. That thinking is based on good science evidence To have such an atmosphere it would need a greater gravitational force,and that begs the question "Where is it going to get it?" Not from "once upon a time" Bert >HiC For Mars to have had giant oceans it would first have to have a >thicker atmosphere like our Earth. That thinking is based on good >science evidence To have such an atmosphere it would need a greater >gravitational force,and that begs the question "Where is it going to get >it?" Not from "once upon a time" Bert Wrong question, Bert. It is not "going to get it", it HAD IT .. and it lost it. C. To answer all your questions regarding water on Mars, buy this month's Scientific American magazine and it will explain it to you in great detail. No more thinking based on your "good bullshit" theory, BeeertBrain. And yes, Mars did have an Earth like magnetic field in the past, but it collapsed and it never came back, thus allowing the Sun's rays unfettered access to the surface, with the obvious results. > HiC For Mars to have had giant oceans it would first have to have a > thicker atmosphere like our Earth. That thinking is based on good > science evidence To have such an atmosphere it would need a greater > gravitational force,and that begs the question "Where is it going to get > it?" Not from "once upon a time" Bert > To answer all your questions regarding water on Mars, buy this month's > Scientific American magazine and it will explain it to you in great detail. > No more thinking based on your "good bullshit" theory, BeeertBrain. > And yes, Mars did have an Earth like magnetic field in the past, but it > collapsed and it never came back, thus allowing the Sun's rays unfettered > access to the surface, with the obvious results. Gee whiz, Hag, is Earth in danger of being demagnitized also? HJ > > To answer all your questions regarding water on Mars, buy this month's > > Scientific American magazine and it will explain it to you in great [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > HJ Yes! http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/09/0909_040909_earthmagfield.html Double-A >> > To answer all your questions regarding water on Mars, buy this month's >> > Scientific American magazine and it will explain it to you in great [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Double-A Now, now, AA... this looks like more of a "yes and no" type thing. The geological record seems to indicate that the Earth's magnetic field has flip-flopped several times in the past. There were times when the Mag. North pole coincided with the Geo. North pole, and then other times when the two didn't coincide, such as now. At present, the Geo. North pole is very near the Mag. South pole, and over many years the strength of Earth's magnetic field has been decreasing. History tells us that this MIGHT mean that the poles are once again reversing. However, it also may mean that the strength of the field may soon begin to increase again with no pole reversal. If the poles actually do reverse, there will probably be a period of from a hundred up to a few hundred years between the pole switch when the field strength will be negligible. And i doubt if this would be long enough to induce any major environmental changes on the surface. The magnetic field would have to be absent for many thousands of years before life would be threatened by the loss. Plus, it looks like Earth is too close to the Sun and its amazingly powerful magnetic field for this to be much of a concern. But still... alarmism can be fun! <g> happy days and... starry starry nights!  SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine http://www.painellsworth.net http://www.savethechildren.org Painius Not one molecule of water out of a billion parts tested in Mars rocks or sand Earth's magnetic field never flipped. That idea of flipping is based on idiotic science Bert >Painius Not one molecule of water out of a billion parts tested in Mars >rocks or sand Earth's magnetic field never flipped. That >idea of flipping is based on idiotic science Bert Beert. there is evidence of a changing magnetic field in the earth. Rocks laid down by volcanic intrusions/extrustion, locks certain minerals in a matrix. the orientation of these minerals is an indicator of the magnetic field in place when the minerals were formed. Your opinion is wrong and not backed by any evidence. SignatureAk'toh'di Bob O read my experiment. Bert Painius I forgot to add this I have an experiment that proves no magnetic flipping and where their thinking went upside down Bert University Corp. for Atmospheric Research... http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/glossary/mag_field_reversals.html > Painius I forgot to add this I have an experiment that proves no > magnetic flipping and where their thinking went upside down Bert Great, Bert! because i was just going to ask you the classic Maria Mitchell question, "Did you learn that from a book or did you observe it yourself?" ( http://physicsandastronomy.vassar.edu/mariamitchell/ ) So, please give details about your experiment! happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine http://www.painellsworth.net http://www.savethechildren.org Painius Its my own thinking. Did not come out of a book. I'm old but I can still think. Experiment very simple. Large 5 foot high test tube filled with water. Bottom of tube a bar magnet. This magnet Earth's north south magnetic field. Very fine magnetic powder iron fillings sprinkled in. Water slows them down so they can alien positive going atop of negative,and negative going atop of positive poles. Doing it again gives vice averse You will note Painius the bar magnet never flipped,and that is the Earth south to north magnetic flow. Its in the books how they read the flip in sedimentary rock found on the bottom of the ocean. We know how these layers are built up and my powdered magnetic iron relates to a volcano shooting powdered "lode stone" into the air and falling into the ocean. My experiment proves what they are seeing is right. How they are interpreting it is "wrong" Bert >Painius Its my own thinking. That's is doubtful... > Did not come out of a book. I'm old but I >can still think. That is doubtful. >Experiment very simple. Large 5 foot high test tube >filled with water. Bottom of tube a bar magnet. This magnet Earth's [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >what they are seeing is right. How they are interpreting it is >"wrong" Bert 1. the material is extruded and the minerals condensed out of the FLow. at no time did the material shoot into the air or was powdered. However the minerals found in the core sample in several place <mid atlantic ridge> show the magnetic field has flip not once by several times. 2.Bert makes a major error in the attributes the flipping of the earth's magnetic to the iron filings falling in the water.... this seem to be a case of bert not understanding the effects and most probable cause. SignatureAk'toh'di Bobie O You just don't get it. Sad but true. Bert > Painius Its my own thinking. Did not come out of a book. I'm old but I > can still think. Bert, you know me. I'm not contesting your ability to think. Please don't confuse me with the stiff necks. > Experiment very simple. Large 5 foot high test tube > filled with water. Bottom of tube a bar magnet. This magnet Earth's [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > again gives vice averse You will note Painius the bar magnet never > flipped,and that is the Earth south to north magnetic flow. How did you position the bar magnet? How did you give this magnet the ability to move (flip) if it were forced to? Was the force powerful enough to move the magnet under the conditions you set for this experiment? And what did you mean by, "Doing it again gives vice averse"? If something lines up vice versa, does this not mean that something else must have flipped? Also, from what i've studied, the powdered iron filings all each become little magnets themselves, so their physical position does not faithfully reflect the bar magnet's field... the physical positions of the iron filings reflect the interactions between the magnetic fields of the iron filings and the magnetic field of the bar magnet. How does this condition figure into your results? > Its > in the books how they read the flip in sedimentary rock found on the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > what they are seeing is right. How they are interpreting it is > "wrong" Bert But Bert, why would this powdered "lode stone" line up first one way and then the other, and then back to the first way and then back to the other way? The polarities of these layered sediments are reversed from one layer to the next. If the volcanic action keeps depositing these layers, why wouldn't the layers keep having the same polarity rather than switching back and forth like they do? happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine http://www.painellsworth.net http://www.savethechildren.org Painius I know we know each other well.,and you think before you call me crazy. First I( lower the bar magnet into the tube with a string so it lines itself to the Earth's magnetic field. Than I know how a plastic magnet is made and basically using the same idea. The water acts as a medium to place the powdered iron filling to the proper magnetic poles.. First layer goes south to north After that has settled I again put in my iron fillings,and they go north to south. Best to keep in mind unlike charges attract. The bar magnet on the bottom representing the Earth's magnetic field. Powdered magnetic molecules of iron represents sediments of volcanic ash that are the building blocks of sedimentary magnetic rock found in our oceans. Yes its a little tricky,and this is why those scientists are tricked. No reason ever for the earth's core dynamo to flip.(change polarity) Reality is for man to change a dynamo's polarity it takes an act on his part not nature's The Sun and Mars flipping their polarity is another story. Be glad to give my ideas on their fields if anyone is interested. bert PS Let each larer I add be relative to 100,000 years on average going by >Painius I know we know each other well.,and you think before you call >me crazy. First I( lower the bar magnet into the tube with a string so >it lines itself to the Earth's magnetic field. Than I know how a plastic >magnet is made and basically using the same idea. The water acts as a >medium to place the powdered iron filling to the proper magnetic poles.. Wrong... The iron filings are not magnetic, they respond to magnetism. They don't layer up as Beert claims. that why I can say this entire experiment is in Beert's head. >First layer goes south to north After that has settled I again put in my >iron fillings,and they go north to south. Best to keep in mind unlike [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >their fields if anyone is interested. bert PS Let each larer I add be >relative to 100,000 years on average going by Beeert is very illucid... SignatureAk'toh'di > Painius I know we know each other well.,and you think before you call > me crazy. First I( lower the bar magnet into the tube with a string so > it lines itself to the Earth's magnetic field. Than I know how a plastic > magnet is made and basically using the same idea. Okay Bert, i'm with you now. The magnet stabilizes with its N pole pointing north and its S pole pointing south. And if i read you correctly, the magnet never flips around. It maintains this position in accordance with the force of Earth's magnetic field acting on it. It never turns back around the other way. In a way, this magnet is similar to just one of the iron filings. This magnet is "caught" in the grand magnetic field that surrounds our planet. So if left to itself, the ONLY way the bar magnet would be able to flip around is if the Earth's magnetic field were to reverse itself, correct? > The water acts as a > medium to place the powdered iron filling to the proper magnetic poles.. > First layer goes south to north After that has settled I again put in my > iron fillings,and they go north to south. Here is where you lose me, Bert. If the bar magnet remains stabilized, if the magnet's N pole always points to the north and its S pole always points to the south, and since as you say next... > Best to keep in mind unlike > charges attract. How can the iron filings, which in the vicinity of the bar magnet become little magnets themselves, each with its very own N pole and S pole, how can they ever line up in layered opposites?! Each iron filing, no matter when it enters the water and heads for the bar magnet, each filing MUST line up the same as all the others. The N pole of each filing must ALWAYS be nearer to the S pole of the bar magnet, and the S pole of each iron filing must ALWAYS be nearer to the N pole of the bar magnet. What am i missing, Bert? > The bar magnet on the bottom representing the Earth's > magnetic field. Powdered magnetic molecules of iron represents sediments [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > their fields if anyone is interested. bert PS Let each larer I add be > relative to 100,000 years on average going by Your bar magnet has no reason to flip. This magnet is acted upon by the force of Earth's magnetic field. Since Earth's magnetic field increases and decreases in strength only very slowly, there is no reason to expect the bar magnet in this experiment to change its direction any time during the experiment. Earth's magnetic field is very different from the field of the bar magnet, however. For one thing, the strength of Earth's field is prominently affected by whatever is happening to the core materials deep inside the surface of Earth. For another, the Sun's great magnetic field, which stretches out beyond Pluto's orbit, has a significant effect upon Earth's magnetic field. Now, i know what you're thinking, and in a way, your thoughts are some of the deepest i've seen on this subject... Later on in this post are links to webpages that show the interactions of magnets and magnetic fields. These will illustrate what i'm about to talk about. Now, Bert, if i read you correctly, you're saying that the first deposit of iron filings line up with the magnetic field of the bar magnet, which is the same as saying that the first deposit of sediment lines up with Earth's magnetic field. Then the second drop of iron filings must line up opposite the first deposit due to the fact that they are primarily affected by the magnetic orientation of the first deposit of filings rather than by the bar magnet. This is analogous to the second layer of sediment lining up opposite in polarity to the first layer because it is primarily affected by the first layer rather than by Earth's magnetic field. Then a third drop of iron filings would line up the same way as the first drop and opposite to the second drop of filings, and so on. Likewise, the third layer of sediment would do the same, and without the least change of polarity of Earth's magnetic field. I haven't read a deeper set of thoughts on this subject in a long, long time! Now what i'd like you to do, Bert, is take a look at the magnetic fields in motion found at the link below... http://my.execpc.com/~rhoadley/magmotion.htm Here's another page that shows what happens as your iron filings drift down toward your suspended bar magnet... http://my.execpc.com/~rhoadley/field06.htm The main difference is only that the little iron filings are not "permanent" magnets like the bar magnet. Instead, they are "temporary" magnets. The only reason they are magnets at all is because the field of the permanent bar magnet flows through them. And yet they still float down toward the bar magnet with their S poles nearer to the bar magnet's N pole, and their N poles nearer to the bar magnet's S pole. Now, if there was some sort of shield between the bar magnet and the iron filings, a physical shield like the paper in the classic Faraday experiment, the iron filings would maintain their field all the way down to the bar magnet. They would then line up in the same manner as in the classic experiment. But in your experiment, there is no kind of shield between the bar magnet and the iron filings. They are allowed to drift right down to the bar magnet and touch it! I put that "!" mark there because when the iron filings actually touch, actually come into contact with the bar magnet, something almost magic takes place!... Let's follow just one iron filing down. And as we do, let's disregard any possible effect that Earth's magnetic field may have on this iron filing. As it floats down to the bar magnet, the filing's temporary magnetic field gets stronger and stronger the closer it gets to the bar magnet. In the instant just before it comes into physical contact with the bar magnet, the iron filing's magnetic field is at its strongest, and its polarity has stayed the same all the way down. Its S pole is nearer to the bar magnet's N pole, and its N pole is closer to the bar magnet's S pole. At just the moment of contact, the field direction or polarity of the iron filing's magnetic field reverses. The iron filing becomes a part of the bar magnet at this point. And this is what happens to ALL the iron filings that float down and touch the bar magnet. Then what happens to the next drop of filings? And the next? Each layer of iron filings undergoes the exact same experience. They all float down with their polarities opposite to the polarity of the bar magnet, opposite to the polarities of all the little iron filings that are already "stuck" to the bar magnet. And when each of those later iron filings finally touch the magnet or the already stuck iron filings, once again each of their *t e m p o r a r y* magnetic fields reverses and they, too, become a part of the bar magnet, stuck like glue. Bert? Why are you so esoteric! <g> happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine http://www.painellsworth.net http://www.savethechildren.org Painius Your killing me by relating me to the word "esoteric" Are you saying my post are used initially to just enlighten a few? Well the word sounds Greek to me. Thanks for those sites,but they do not really portray my experiment showing opposite polarity readings when adding one on top of the other magnets. Well it makes no difference if a magnetic field went from south to north,or flowed from north to south. The compass needle would work just as well. Yes the Earth's magnet pole can wonder ,and I can live with that. To make the dynamo that creates the south to north magnetic flow change the dynamo would have to flip and I can not live with that. Nor is there any good theory that really proves this flipping. Bert Once upon a time Mars circled the Sun at a distance of 93 million miles. Its tall volcanoes were the only objects sticking out of the waves. Fishing was great. The red fin tuna. Those big red salmon. Those red lobsters were the fish of the day. It was an Eden water land. Never to go thirsty,or hungry. Like Eden where God said do not eat the apples,on Mars water Eden God said "Don;t eat the clams.using a sea snake as his voice. They gave into temptation and ate a clam. The rest of the story is history. Their water Eden dried up. God placed Mars 155 million miles from the Sun. Adam & Eve fled to the Earth to escape the cold weather. Reality is they again were told by a snake not to go near the apple tree.,and again they let temptation take over,and felt the rath of God.(like no more running around bare a.s etc.) Moral of this story is Mars would still have deep oceans if Adam And Eve ate lobsters instead of clams Here on Earth we have to pay for us to see on the web girls bare a.ses. It all fits. Reality is if Humankind don't shape up God will have the Earth orbiting the Sun 934 million miles out,and its super cold there,and you will have to drill a 10 mile hole in the ice to catch a Jew fish Bert Just go to Florida, BEERTbrain! Plenty of Jew fishes. Saul Levy >Once upon a time Mars circled the Sun at a distance of 93 million >miles. Its tall volcanoes were the only objects sticking out of the [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >out,and its super cold there,and you will have to drill a 10 mile hole >in the ice to catch a Jew fish Bert Cactus Saul Don't have to go to Miami to find jew fishes. When scuba diving in Boston harbor I swam with a jewfish,and it was like swimming with a manatee It was 5 feet long. very gentle,and swam very slow. I even gave it a hug. In my comic(hope it was funny) scenario I used the jewfish,because history has shown me Jews can learn to live every where. Bert > Painius Your killing me by relating me to the word "esoteric" Are you > saying my post are used initially to just enlighten a few? Well the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > and I can not live with that. Nor is there any good theory that really > proves this flipping. Bert I'm not killing you, Bert, not by a long shot (no pun intended). When i asked you, "Why are you so esoteric?", i meant it in a good way. I guess i could go into a long, drawn-out and probably very boring explanation, but instead, let's just say that i consider many of your ideas to be very highly thought-inspiring. I happen to think that your layering idea has much merit. And the truth of the matter is probably an interesting combination of what science believes, and what you believe... The compelling thought for me is whether or not we consider Earth to be a permanent magnet or a temporary magnet. If the magnetic field of Earth is a permanent field, then reversing the polarity of this field would be a monumental task, even for the powerful magnetic field of the Sun. So i can see how you would feel as you do about the flipping polarity of Earth's magnetic field. But what if the Earth's magnetic field is not a permanent field, but a tempory field that's in part controlled by the Sun's magnetic field? And what if, every 11 years or so, when the Sun's magnetic field polarity reverses, it goes from reinforcing the magnetic field of Earth to countering it? Now, because Earth's field may also be governed by internal activity in Earth's core, maybe it is during these times, when the Sun's magnetic field goes against Earth's magnetic field, that the Earth's magnetic poles tend to drift the most. Maybe its during these times that Earth's magnetic field decreases in strength a little. If the field strength has, over the years and decades decreased to a certain small amount, perhaps a new sediment is deposited that would not be much affected by the diminished field of Earth, and more affected by the magnetic alignment of the previous sediment. Then, the Sun's field reverses again reinforcing Earth's field. Earth's poles drift back into a proper alignment with the Sun's field, and a reversal of Earth's field never actually takes place. This may begin a new cycle where Earth's magnetic field begins to slowly increase in strength. So i can see how reversely polarized sediment can be deposited without requiring a reversal of Earth's magnetic field. And i can also see how, under extreme conditions, Earth's magnetic field might behave more like a temporary magnet, like an "iron filing", sometimes getting so weak that a reversal of the Sun's field might reverse Earth's magnetic field. So as i said, the truth may very well lie in the possibility that sometimes the sediment's polarity is a result of the new sediment being affected moreso by the polarity of the previous sediment than by Earth's field, and sometimes a new layer of sediment might be laid following a reversal of Earth's magnetic field. happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine http://www.painellsworth.net http://www.savethechildren.org > > Painius Your killing me by relating me to the word "esoteric" Are you > > saying my post are used initially to just enlighten a few? Well the [quoted text clipped - 82 lines] > http://www.painellsworth.net > http://www.savethechildren.org Paine, I understand Bert's idea, really I do. Yet it is disconcerting that the Earth's magnetic field now seems to be gradually losing its force. It is also scary that it is believed that Mars used to have a magnetic field and lost it, exposing its atmosphere to rapid depletion by the solar wind. There has not been a magnetic field reversal since mankind evolved. Double-A > Paine, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Double-A Now there you go again! <g> Let me see if i can add fuel to the fire... Bert's premise raises the alarming possibility that, because Earth's magnetic field may be more like a permanent magnet rather than a temporary one, and therefore nothing, not even the Sun's strong field would be able to reverse Earth's field, it's then very possible that Earth's field has NEVER reversed. This is alarming because it may mean that the present slow decline in the strength of Earth's field might not be leading toward a field reversal, but instead might be leading toward a total loss of the field! If this is true, and if the present rate of decline continues, then we have perhaps another 2,000 years before the field strength reaches effectively zero teslas. (It ranges from about 30 - 60 micro- teslas at present.) On the good side, research has opened the distinct possibility that there are long periods when the field strength does not change, and even periods when the field strength cycles up and down a bit. So it's not easy to say just how much of a problem this is, or will ever be. The changes are simply too slow for us to have a solid research base to study. happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine http://www.painellsworth.net http://www.savethechildren.org Painius What you just posted is the reason for my no flip theory. It begs the questions Why the flipping takes place after about 100,000 years go by? What force is used to Flip it? Is the flipping done all at once,or over this 100,000 years? Does the whole Earth flip? Does just the Earth's core flip? Does a great magnetic surge from the Sun reverse the Earth's polarity? When the Sun flips its magnetic field,does the Earth's field act with it. Lots of questions. My theory does away with these questions. by proving scientist are reading the tea leaves wrong. Bert >Painius What you just posted is the reason for my no flip theory. It >begs the questions Why the flipping takes place after about 100,000 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >questions. My theory does away with these questions. by proving >scientist are reading the tea leaves wrong. Bert Beert go have an bit more to drink. SignatureAk'toh'di >> Paine, >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >then very possible that Earth's field has NEVER >reversed. This is alarming because it may mean Stop right there you doomsdays suck-ups There is evidence that the earth magnetic field has revered itself several times. just as there is evidence it has varied back and forth over the last 100 million years or so. Stop playing dooms day with science or go to some sort of fiction writing group.... Science has enough trouble with Beeert brain idiots, chicken littles are not needed. SignatureAk'toh'di >>> Paine, >>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Stop right there you doomsdays suck-ups Stop in *your* tracks, li'l gooseling! > There is evidence that the earth magnetic field has revered itself > several times. just as there is evidence it has varied back and forth > over the last 100 million years or so. Evidence which may be being misinterpreted? If Earth's magnetic field is more like a permanent magnet than a temporary magnet, then it's quite possible that the field has never reversed. Ever try to reverse the field of a permanent magnet, gooseling? > Stop playing dooms day with science or go to some sort of fiction > writing group.... Give me a f.cking break, coffeeboi. We're talking about a situation which gives us a couple thousand years to deal with, no matter what the liklihood. I'm sure you could come up with more pressing potential tragedies, you poor, phobic li'l honker. > Science has enough trouble with Beeert brain idiots, chicken littles > are not needed. Then you had better hightail it, eh? YOU are the one saying "doomsday", li'l trembleberry gooseling. Bob? why do you have such big balls? <g> happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine http://www.painellsworth.net http://www.savethechildren.org >>>> Paine, >>>> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > >Evidence which may be being misinterpreted? That is doubtful since the evidence has been found in multiple locations. Not just core samples from the mid atlantic ridge, but a place in oregon where the Magma contains enough magnetic material that aligned with the magnetic north. the material was laid down in multiple layers and show not just the magnetic drift over the last million years, but it showed flips also. >If Earth's magnetic field is more like a permanent >magnet than a temporary magnet, then it's quite >possible that the field has never reversed. Ever >try to reverse the field of a permanent magnet, >gooseling? However it isn't a permanent magnet, magnetic drift and variance is measurable over short time periods and has matching evidence for long periods. Evidence, real physical evidence... >> Stop playing dooms day with science or go to some sort of fiction >> writing group.... > >Give me a f.cking break, coffeeboi. We're talking Now Just a f.cking minute. I have been in and out this and the Sci Astro groups for years. I have been an active amateur astronomy for nearly 40 years. You whiny a.s, puss filled, fiction loving pucks make me puke. You ignore science and evidence, and stream like flies to sh.t to just about every nutbar mental case doomsday sayer that comes along. You are stupid and an international embarrassment to the United States. Coffeeboi indeed. that name was given to you by Art, and it fits. SignatureAk'toh'di >>>>> Paine, >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] >comes along. You are stupid and an international embarrassment to the >United States. Don't hold back, Bob. Tell us (TINU) how you really feel :-) >Coffeeboi indeed. that name was given to you by Art, and it fits. Send them to Godlike Productions. They will be perfectly at home, and away from the evils of science and critical thinking. SignatureFind out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult: http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm "You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down." "Maths proves you know how to plug in some figures into a formula, that's all" "Even physics is based on wrong theories, so what's the use of maths" Carole - demonstrating her mathematical abilities. On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 05:33:54 GMT, in alt.astronomy, Wally Anglesea <wanglese@spammersbigpondareparasites.net.au> wrote: >>>>>> Paine, >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > >Don't hold back, Bob. Tell us (TINU) how you really feel :-) Maybe we can send them to oz... >>Coffeeboi indeed. that name was given to you by Art, and it fits. > >Send them to Godlike Productions. They will be perfectly at home, and >away from the evils of science and critical thinking. Well that's an idea.... SignatureAk'toh'di >>>>> Paine, >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > multiple layers and show not just the magnetic drift over the last > million years, but it showed flips also. Yes, i believe there is some evidence out Hawaii way, as well. I'm not saying that science is wrong about this, li'l gooseling. I'm just saying that i happen to like Bert's idea that the sediment *could* have been deposited with polarities reversed due to the interaction between sediments rather than due to a worldwide pole reversal. And i think you're a fathead to chide us about it... a narrowminded fathead! >>If Earth's magnetic field is more like a permanent >>magnet than a temporary magnet, then it's quite [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > measurable over short time periods and has matching evidence for long > periods. Evidence, real physical evidence... Yeah, Piltdown Man was "real physical evidence" for your big dumb brain coming before everything else on the evolutionary scale, too. Real physical evidence can be sadly, sometimes very grossly, misinterpreted, gooseling. Live with it. >>> Stop playing dooms day with science or go to some sort of fiction >>> writing group.... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Astro groups for years. I have been an active amateur astronomy for > nearly 40 years. f.ck, gooseling!... i bet you think your sh.t don't stink. > You whiny a.s, puss filled, fiction loving pucks > make me puke. You should probably take something for that, Bob. > You ignore science and evidence, and stream like flies > to sh.t to just about every nutbar mental case doomsday sayer that > comes along. You are stupid and an international embarrassment to the > United States. Okay, i guess i can work on that. > Coffeeboi indeed. that name was given to you by Art, and it fits. Geez, gooseling, you had better get with your Mother Goose, Art Deco, and catch up on things. You're so f.cking far behind, it may take you yet another 40 years!... The term "coffee boy" was name bestowed on the a.u.k types after Art Deco started calling us [tinu] "saucerheads". Then somebody modified it a little to the "coffeeboi" monaker. Coffeeboi indeed? Indeed! happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine http://www.painellsworth.net http://www.savethechildren.org >> . . . Coffeeboi indeed. that name was given to you by Art, and it fits. > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Indeed! btw, i like mine black with 2 sugars... now get moving, coffeeboi! ...and do something about those goosebumps. SignatureDelectably yours, Paine http://www.painellsworth.net http://www.savethechildren.org <snip> >>>> There is evidence that the earth magnetic field has revered itself >>>> several times. just as there is evidence it has varied back and forth [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Yes, i believe there is some evidence out Hawaii >way, as well. "I believe" >I'm not saying that science is wrong >about this, li'l gooseling. I'm just saying that i >happen to like Bert's idea that the sediment *could* >have been deposited with polarities reversed due to >the interaction between sediments rather than due >to a worldwide pole reversal. Apart from the citing the usual crackpots, how are the data being misinterpreted? What interaction between sediments are you referring to? How would that interaction explain the evidence? Is this something to do with more of your super secret references which you can't provide? > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > "I believe" As in, "I read about it somewhere recently and have no reason to doubt it." "I believe" is what i say when i have no inclination to thoroughly confirm something. >>I'm not saying that science is wrong >>about this, li'l gooseling. I'm just saying that i [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > misinterpreted? What interaction between sediments are you referring to? > How would that interaction explain the evidence? Maybe the data is being misinterpreted, maybe not. I'm referring to the magnetic-field interaction between the sediments. If the Earth's magnetic field is disregarded, as it may be if it's at near-zero strength, or if it's fighting an oppositely polarized solar magnetic field, then a new deposit of sediment would still line up with opposite polarity to the previous deposit of sediment, as if there actually was a geomagnetic pole reversal. But instead of Earth's poles reversing, the new deposit of sediment is forced into an opposite polarity _by the field of the previously deposited sediment_. If this happens several times, then there could be several layers of sediment, each oppositely polarized to it's adjacent layers. And all without any need for Earth's magnetic field to reverse polarity. > Is this something to do > with more of your super secret references which you can't provide? <g> It's something to do with discussion of an idea that may or may not be an alternative explanation for the way the sedimentary layers have turned out. happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine http://www.painellsworth.net http://www.savethechildren.org >>>>>> Paine, >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] >the interaction between sediments rather than due >to a worldwide pole reversal. Whether you like beerts ideas or not has no bearing on whether or not anything beert says is science. It's not, you know? >And i think you're a fathead to chide us about it... >a narrowminded fathead! science is too hard for you , huh? >>>If Earth's magnetic field is more like a permanent >>>magnet than a temporary magnet, then it's quite [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >evidence can be sadly, sometimes very grossly, >misinterpreted, gooseling. Piltdown Man was exposed very rapidly by science as a fraud. HTH, clueless. What a waste. SignatureFind out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult: http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm "You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down." "Maths proves you know how to plug in some figures into a formula, that's all" "Even physics is based on wrong theories, so what's the use of maths" Carole - demonstrating her mathematical abilities. Double-A The Earth's magnetic field is created by a dynamo,and you know how that works No dynamo can change its polarity or ever will without out side help(force) It can be done by man(small dynamos easily. If my theory came first, it would make flipping crazy talk. Go figure bert. I'm sure your theory, BEERTbrain, actually models the real Earth! NOT! Saul Levy >Double-A The Earth's magnetic field is created by a dynamo,and you know >how that works No dynamo can change its polarity or ever will without >out side help(force) It can be done by man(small dynamos easily. If my >theory came first, it would make flipping crazy talk. Go figure bert. Cactus Saul Like all my theories good science is what they rest on. yes my thinking is relating the Earth's magnetic field with just an iron bar. Best to keep in mind if you want this iron bar to be a magnet you just place it into the center of the magnetic field Oops I just built an electro magnet. Might throw this in "The Earth's magnetic poles are not alien with its geographical poles. Sum it up the Earth is electromagnet that is created by iron in the score and the mechanical Energy from the spinning Earth Bert PS Cactus Saul. That was your second best post to me. I feel like keep going so I'll add this stuff Possibly the Tokamak machine has the greatest man made magnetic field? Its "torus" can have gases heated up to become a "plasma",and this plasma can be effected by magnetisim. It can than squeeze this plasma into a narrow ring at the center of the torus,and now even create a higher temperature,and pressure that will cause fusion to occur. Cactus Saul reality is the Tokamak works,but has one bad feature. "iI is its own worse enemy" it melts down in a second. My "Pulse fusion machine" can last a 100 years or more Bert Blah, blah, blah, BEERTbrain! Saul Levy >Cactus Saul Like all my theories good science is what they rest on. yes >my thinking is relating the Earth's magnetic field with just an iron [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >own worse enemy" it melts down in a second. My "Pulse fusion machine" >can last a 100 years or more Bert Cactus Saul Why do you waste a post by just saying "blah Blah Blar"? Is "blah" in the dictionary?. Its used but not often. sounds to me like a slang word,and Cactus Saul lately you need to wash your mouth with soap suds. You have a dirty mouth. Your use of words is not "kosher" Try to stay away from 4 letter words. Bert "Wally AngleseaT" <wanglese@spammersbigpondareparasites.net.au> wrote... >>>>>>> Paine, >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > It's not, you know? Whether you dislike Bert's ideas or not has no bearing on whether or not anything he says is science, either. >>And i think you're a fathead to chide us about it... >>a narrowminded fathead! > > science is too hard for you , huh? People skills are too hard for you, eh? >>>>If Earth's magnetic field is more like a permanent >>>>magnet than a temporary magnet, then it's quite [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Piltdown Man was exposed very rapidly by science as a fraud. > HTH, clueless. "Very rapidly?"... as evolutionary change goes. <g> In "human" terms, 40 years ain't "very rapidly"! Science thought the big dumb brain came first for well over half a man's lifetime, li'l gooseling. > What a waste. What a disappointment. If i had a teacher like you? I'd wonder what the hell else does he miss? Shape up before the aliens pick you up and eat you. happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine http://www.painellsworth.net http://www.savethechildren.org >>>>>> Paine, >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] >the interaction between sediments rather than due >to a worldwide pole reversal. Now try to reproduce Beeert brain's little mind "experiment". The polarity in the layers doesn't alternate. Hint: Iron filings are not always magnetic, the respond to magnetism. >And i think you're a fathead to chide us about it... >a narrowminded fathead! Beert is Twit. the "science officer" game you guys play is stupid and childish... you are an public embarrassment to everyone. Beert has an excuse as he is old and stupid. your problem is you are just stupid. >>>If Earth's magnetic field is more like a permanent >>>magnet than a temporary magnet, then it's quite [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Yeah, Piltdown Man was "real physical evidence" Piltdown man was debunked, science looked at the evidence and rejected it. Popular press was the embarrassment to science. >for your big dumb brain coming before everything >else on the evolutionary scale, too. Real physical >evidence can be sadly, sometimes very grossly, >misinterpreted, gooseling. However this evidence seems to be solid and found in multiple places. >Live with it. I can but you continue to be an embarrassment. >>>> Stop playing dooms day with science or go to some sort of fiction >>>> writing group.... [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >You should probably take something for that, Bob. I do it is called education, logic and common sense. all which you lack. >> You ignore science and evidence, and stream like flies >> to sh.t to just about every nutbar mental case doomsday sayer that >> comes along. You are stupid and an international embarrassment to the >> United States. > >Okay, i guess i can work on that. Ignorance can be cured with education, stupidity is forever. >> Coffeeboi indeed. that name was given to you by Art, and it fits. >Geez, gooseling, you had better get with your >Mother Goose, Art Deco, and catch up on things. >You're so f.cking far behind, it may take you yet >another 40 years!... I'll like that another 40 years... >The term "coffee boy" was name bestowed on the >a.u.k types after Art Deco started calling us [tinu] >"saucerheads". Then somebody modified it a little >to the "coffeeboi" monaker. You are scaucerheads. and you collective have been nominated and given awards... http://www.netcabal.com/auk/kookle.php?search=astronomy Kookle Search Results 6 matches for "astronomy". Paine Ellsworth, a.k.a. "Painius" of alt.astronomy Joseph Bartlo "Pathetic Anal Pineapple" Award, April 2006 Saucerheads of Alt.Astronomy Kook of the Month, April 2006 Kook Chess Set, Red Queen's Pawn nightbat of alt.astronomy Victor von Frankenstein "Weird Science" Award, September 2005 Tony Sidaway Memorial "Drama Queen" Award, March 2006 Goofy Azzed Babboon >Coffeeboi indeed? > >Indeed! All my nights are star filled or foggy... SignatureAk'toh'di Painius Thank you for not just reading my "no flipping" but studying it as well. Like I posted flipping makes no difference to a compass. Flipping does beg the questions Why the flipping is needed,and what is the source to cause the flip?? bert > Painius Thank you for not just reading my "no flipping" but studying it > as well. Like I posted flipping makes no difference to a compass. > Flipping does beg the questions Why the flipping is needed,and what is > the source to cause the flip?? bert Try to understand, my friend, in all honesty i do not agree with your interpretation of your experiment. The filings respond to the bar magnet as i described before. They do drift down to the magnet with an opposite polarity _to the magnet_, and *not* to the previous layer of filings. The previous layer of filings change their polarity the instant they touch the bar magnet. These filings effectively become part of the bar magnet itself, and their field polarities are the exact same as the bar magnet. So *all* the filings from every layer drift down with polarities opposite to the bar magnet. And when all of these filings reach the magnet and touch it, or touch the filings that are already there, then the new filings' field polarities are flipped to be just like the bar magnet's field polarity. HOWEVER,.. i was still very intrigued by your *interpretation* of your experiment. And that is why i studied it further. It appears very strongly that the idea of sediment layers being much more affected by the field polarities of the previous layers than by the field of Earth is a viable alternative way to interpret the evidence. As you know, this would mean that the magnetic field of Earth may have *never* flipped, or may have only flipped for a "blink of an eye", in the entire history of our planet. SignatureLife is Good! Indelibly yours, Paine http://www.painellsworth.net http://www.savethechildren.org Painius the iron fillings(powder) would line to the flow of the Earth's magnetic field,but once coming close the the top layer of magnetic rock's surface the opposite poles would attract each other and it would be south on top of north,and the next 1oo,ooo years would be north on top of south. The sedimentary rock could never have a layer south pole on top of south pole. Only the very bottom layer was able to line up with the earth's lines of force. Want to weaken a bar magnet Have its poles perpendicular to theEarth's magnetic lines. Bert >Painius the iron fillings(powder) Iron filings (powdered) is not magnetic. [bullshit removed] SignatureAk'toh'di Bobie brain Your post is telling us magnets have to be larger than say dust. It is the lining up of the atoms that causes iron to become magnetic Best you keep in mind "a magnet is an ordinary piece of metal surrounded by an invisible field of force which affects any magnetic material in it. Please Bobie brain do some reading up on "Domains" and have some good physics in use before you attack me Bert PS proop that all objects can posses magnetizim in them is a mouse has been levitated by a magnetic field >>>>>>> Paine, >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > polarity in the layers doesn't alternate. Hint: Iron filings are not > always magnetic, the respond to magnetism. Yes, i saw that... the iron filings maintain a polarity that is reverse to the bar magnet all the way down until they touch the bar magnet. Then the magnetic fields of the filings reverse polarity as they touch the bar magnet. At this point, the filings effectively *become* a part of the bar magnet. This does not mean that sediments will do the same, however. It still seems possible for a layer of sediment to line up with opposite polarity to the previous sediment layer because of the magnetic field polarity of the previous sediment layer, rather than due to a reversal of Earth's magnetic field. >>And i think you're a fathead to chide us about it... >>a narrowminded fathead! > > Beert is Twit. the "science officer" game you guys play is stupid and > childish... you are an public embarrassment to everyone. Beert has an > excuse as he is old and stupid. your problem is you are just stupid. You embarrass yourself here all the time, gooseling! What's the f.cking difference? >>>>If Earth's magnetic field is more like a permanent >>>>magnet than a temporary magnet, then it's quite [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Piltdown man was debunked, science looked at the evidence and > rejected it. Popular press was the embarrassment to science. Forty years of believing (and drawing countless incorrect conclusions from) the "evidence" that the enlarged brain was first before tool making, even language... THIS was the embarrassment to science. Anthropology *still* hasn't recovered completely from this travesty. >>for your big dumb brain coming before everything >>else on the evolutionary scale, too. Real physical >>evidence can be sadly, sometimes very grossly, >>misinterpreted, gooseling. > > However this evidence seems to be solid and found in multiple places. Key words, "seems to be". Found in multiple places is irrelevant, gooseling. The evidence itself and the interpretation of the evidence is in question here. What difference does it make that it's been found in multiple places? It makes no difference if the new sediment layer was laid down in Hawaii, in the Atlantic ocean bed, or in Brooklyn. If it is reversed in polarity to the older layer of sediment, then it may very well have been due to the polarity of the older layer rather than to a reversal of Earth's magnetic field. >>Live with it. > > I can but you continue to be an embarrassment. Yes, i seem to be able to embarrass you quite effectively. Why do you let me do that to you, Bob? Don't you have *any* sense of self-esteem? >>>>> Stop playing dooms day with science or go to some sort of fiction >>>>> writing group.... [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > I do it is called education, logic and common sense. all which you > lack. All evidence to the contrary. You don't even seem to know if you're a saucerhead or a coffeeboi! >>> You ignore science and evidence, and stream like flies >>> to sh.t to just about every nutbar mental case doomsday sayer that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Ignorance can be cured with education, stupidity is forever. This certainly doozn't bode well for *your* chances, dooz it. >>> Coffeeboi indeed. that name was given to you by Art, and it fits. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I'll like that another 40 years... Enjoy! I hope you make it! >>The term "coffee boy" was name bestowed on the >>a.u.k types after Art Deco started calling us [tinu] [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Paine Ellsworth, a.k.a. "Painius" of alt.astronomy > Joseph Bartlo "Pathetic Anal Pineapple" Award, April 2006 Am i supposed to feel honored? I pay little or no attention to your and the other gooselings' antics with this pathetic attempt to embarrass people, Bob. You said "the 'science officer' game you guys play is stupid and childish... you are an public embarrassment to everyone." How much moreso do you coffee boys embarrass each other with these asinine awards? Infinitely moreso, Bob. You're all just a bunch of also-ran kooks chasing other kooks. > Saucerheads of Alt.Astronomy > Kook of the Month, April 2006 [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > All my nights are star filled or foggy... Mostly foggy, i'd bet. It's good to see that you're on board at least as much as your knowing that you're just a coffee boy and not one of us [tinu], Bob. We wouldn't want to see you running the ball toward the wrong goal, now would we. SignatureAre we having fun yet? Indelibly yours, Paine http://www.painellsworth.net http://www.savethechildren.org Bobbie brain You like all the dim wits must personally bring down the messenger,and not discuss the message as a bright brain would do. still have a happy Thanksgiving. your head has a little brain,but I'm sure you have a big mouth,so reach for the turkey leg It fits Bert >Bobbie brain You like all the dim wits must personally bring down the >messenger,and not discuss the message as a bright brain would do. >still have a happy Thanksgiving. your head has a little brain,but I'm >sure you have a big mouth,so reach for the turkey leg It fits Bert Your message is gibberish, Beeert. SignatureAk'toh'di >>>>>>>> Paine, >>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > >Yes, i saw that... the iron filings maintain a polarity Note sometimes iron filing are magnetic, but very weak. Beert wrote powered iron... which is not magnetic. The material used to trace magnetism isn't magnetic, but response to magnetism. the crystals grow in response to magnetism, they will align themselves. these complex ferro-manganese minerals are insoluble in water and grow only in rock as it cools down. the indicators can be reset by heating. the indicators always realign to the position of the magnetic field. While we do not have direct evidence or direct observations, we do have evidence which indicates both a wandering magnetic pole and a filing of poles over a very long period. >that is reverse to the bar magnet all the way down >until they touch the bar magnet. Then the magnetic [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >previous sediment layer, rather than due to a >reversal of Earth's magnetic field. Only if the material is magnetite (a complex iron oxide)... While iron filings can be weakly magnetic as many materials are, they are not considered magnets. >>>And i think you're a fathead to chide us about it... >>>a narrowminded fathead! [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >You embarrass yourself here all the time, gooseling! >What's the f.cking difference? Bullshit, painus... you are so weak and staving for attention to have fallen sway to some very dull witted people. I once thought you were smarter than that. >>>>>If Earth's magnetic field is more like a permanent >>>>>magnet than a temporary magnet, then it's quite [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >Anthropology *still* hasn't recovered completely >from this travesty. If you think that was what the piltdown man was about you are mistaken. >>>for your big dumb brain coming before everything >>>else on the evolutionary scale, too. Real physical [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Key words, "seems to be". Like all science it is evidence based. new evidence is found all the time. new evidence can change how you view the old evidence. Science admits it knowledge base is in complete. >Found in multiple places is irrelevant, gooseling. >The evidence itself and the interpretation of the >evidence is in question here. What difference does >it make that it's been found in multiple places? The evidence is wide spread. Which means this is not a localized phenomena. It is wide spread found over all ages of rocks... which means this record is an constant thing as rock is layered down in new deposits. >It makes no difference if the new sediment layer >was laid down in Hawaii, in the Atlantic ocean bed, >or in Brooklyn. If it is reversed in polarity to the >older layer of sediment, then it may very well have >been due to the polarity of the older layer rather >than to a reversal of Earth's magnetic field. <sigh> when you study geology come back to this argument. you are wrong. Simple statement. learn to live with it. You lost this one when you started calling me a gooseling. It does matter when and where it is layered down. it is enough these questions have been asked, years ago when the discovery was made. Read it again... this material they use as an indicator is not magnetic itself but responds to magnetism. it isn't iron filings or iron power, as beert used in his mental experiment. >>>Live with it. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >effectively. Why do you let me do that to you, Bob? >Don't you have *any* sense of self-esteem? I don't see any embarrassment on my part. beert experiment never took place anywhere except in his brain. the results are none existent. he created a thought experiment which doesn't reflect the material under discussion. >>>>>> Stop playing dooms day with science or go to some sort of fiction >>>>>> writing group.... [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >All evidence to the contrary. You don't even seem to >know if you're a saucerhead or a coffeeboi! You a moron right now. Upset someone has point to your sycophants as loons. >>>> You ignore science and evidence, and stream like flies >>>> to sh.t to just about every nutbar mental case doomsday sayer that [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >This certainly doozn't bode well for *your* chances, >dooz it. My life has been a life long education... Go play star trek someplace else. >>>> Coffeeboi indeed. that name was given to you by Art, and it fits. >> [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] >> >> All my nights are star filled or foggy... >Mostly foggy, i'd bet. It's good to see that you're Actually not. most are star filled. I work outside six nights a week. I use more science in one night that you would think. >on board at least as much as your knowing that >you're just a coffee boy and not one of us [tinu], I would shoot myself before I was in the same class with you Dishonestjohn, warhol, and dingbat. I would have to drink myself to death and have a pickled brain to end up as stupid as Beert. >Bob. We wouldn't want to see you running the >ball toward the wrong goal, now would we. SignatureBob Officer "Sorry, but idiocy unleavened with some form of sentience does not register on the Irony Meter. Nice try, however. You did show a positive indication on the Idiot Indicator, if that's any consolation." Glen Quarnstrom (RIP), 1999 Bobie Doll Brain You would rather think of nasty stuff to throw at people than take a little time to think. Your last post gives evidence of that. Bert > Bobie Doll Brain You would rather think of nasty stuff to throw at > people than take a little time to think. Your last post gives evidence > of that. Bert At least we can be Thanksgivingful that Bobie knows the difference between a coffee boy and a kook... no difference at all! SignatureLife is Good! Indelibly yours, Paine http://www.painellsworth.net http://www.savethechildren.org "Painius" <starswirlerno@noaol.com> wrote in message > At least we can be Thanksgivingful that Bobie knows > the difference between a coffee boy and a kook... > > no difference at all! No truer words were ever spoken in alt.astronomy! C.H.J. HJ Like Armstrong took a golf ball to the moon A Mars astronaut has to take his rubber ducky to Mars. Bert >>>>>>>>> Paine, >>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > have evidence which indicates both a wandering magnetic pole and a > filing of poles over a very long period. That's the popular interpretation. Nobody's been denying this. Repeating it over and over in your mind unfocuses you, Bob. Try thinking, take your brain out for a spin! >>that is reverse to the bar magnet all the way down >>until they touch the bar magnet. Then the magnetic [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > iron filings can be weakly magnetic as many materials are, they are > not considered magnets. This depends upon their position related to any magnetic field from another object that may be acting upon them. Iron filings turn into little magnets with little magnetic fields all their own when they become magnetized by a permanent magnet in their vicinity. >>>>And i think you're a fathead to chide us about it... >>>>a narrowminded fathead! [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > fallen sway to some very dull witted people. I once thought you were > smarter than that. Alzheimer's is better than drugs! >>>>>>If Earth's magnetic field is more like a permanent >>>>>>magnet than a temporary magnet, then it's quite [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > If you think that was what the piltdown man was about you are > mistaken. Back it up, buttface. >>>>for your big dumb brain coming before everything >>>>else on the evolutionary scale, too. Real physical [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > time. new evidence can change how you view the old evidence. Science > admits it knowledge base is in complete. So now you're admitting that science may be wrong about the Earth's magnetic field reversing? One day at at time, Bob, one day at a time. That's progress! >>Found in multiple places is irrelevant, gooseling. >>The evidence itself and the interpretation of the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > means this record is an constant thing as rock is layered down in new > deposits. And all we're [tinw] saying is that this wide-spread evidence, this geological record of past events, could be interpreted a different way. >>It makes no difference if the new sediment layer >>was laid down in Hawaii, in the Atlantic ocean bed, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > You lost this one when you started calling me a gooseling. You lose when you talk like this, li'l gooseling. "You are wrong" without any explanation is a prime example of the arrogance of your position. In one breath, you exclaim that science is still more of an art than a science, then in the next breath, somebody is wrong, wrong, wrong. Significant markings of a true ko0k! > It does matter when and where it is layered down. it is enough these > questions have been asked, years ago when the discovery was made. Again, try to focus, boobie-brain... When and where these sediments are deposited *does* matter when you desire to know when and how widespread the phenomenon is. They give little if any clue as to what actually *caused* the oppositely polarized sediment layers. These layers may have been caused by polarity reversals of Earth's magnetic field, as science has interpreted the evidence to mean. At first glance, this might even seem to be a "no brainer". However, since as you say, "Science admits its knowledge base is incomplete," then what is the harm in exploring other possible causes of these layers? > Read it again... this material they use as an indicator is not > magnetic itself but responds to magnetism. it isn't iron filings or > iron power, as beert used in his mental experiment. If the material is not magnetic, then what is causing the atoms to line up so that geologists can note a difference in the layers? >>>>Live with it. >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I don't see any embarrassment on my part. That's because i'm so subtle about it. > beert experiment never took place anywhere except in his brain. the > results are none existent. he created a thought experiment which > doesn't reflect the material under discussion. How scientific of you to say this. It must have been a satisfying vacation to Florida for you if you went to the time and expense of verifying what you say in a scientific manner. Or, are you merely embarrassing yourself more and more? >>>>>>> Stop playing dooms day with science or go to some sort of fiction >>>>>>> writing group.... [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > You a moron right now. Upset someone has point to your sycophants as > loons. Hunger upsets me, Bob. Starvation and disease, dirty drinking water and global apathy, these things upset me, Bob. My friends are grown-ups, Bob, full-fledged adults... unlike certain gooselings i know. If you and your kooky friends think them to be loons, it's because ya'll like to look at mirrors rather than at real life. You would rather squawk like a parrot than do any real thinking, any real questioning of quasi-religious scientific dogma. Squawk away, Toucan Bob! >>>>> You ignore science and evidence, and stream like flies >>>>> to sh.t to just about every nutbar mental case doomsday sayer that [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > My life has been a life long education... So when will you finally absorb some of it? > Go play star trek someplace > else. Some of today's *finest* science has been the result of the dreams of science-fiction writers. I'll play Star Trek anyplace i please, thank you very much! >>>>> Coffeeboi indeed. that name was given to you by Art, and it fits. >>> [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > Actually not. most are star filled. I work outside six nights a week. > I use more science in one night that you would think. No argument from me. I find it difficult to believe you know *how* to use science in any other than "light switch ON, light switch OFF" sort of ways. >>on board at least as much as your knowing that >>you're just a coffee boy and not one of us [tinu], > > I would shoot myself before I was in the same class with you > Dishonestjohn, warhol, and dingbat. I would have to drink myself to > death and have a pickled brain to end up as stupid as Beert. You're not as different as you apparently like to think, Bob. You keep up a good conversation! What a charmer. SignatureHow can life BE better? Indelibly yours, Paine http://www.painellsworth.net http://www.savethechildren.org >>>>>>>>>> Paine, >>>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 91 lines] >magnetic field from another object that may be >acting upon them. >Iron filings turn into little magnets with little >magnetic fields all their own when they become >magnetized by a permanent magnet in their >vicinity. Really? you seen this directly? Under exactly what conditions... &g |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message