Would magn. pole reversal actually mess up electronic equipment?
JJ
this has perhaps been asked before(?)
Apologies in that case.
What I wanted to ask is, if earths magnetic pole now would manage to
flip in a really quick timespan (let's say less than 5 minutes), would
that have any effect on electronic equipment, and if so, why?
I mean I would think that the would not be any effect. After all,
electronic equipment do not rely on earths magnetic field in some way.
How would they?
Or would there be some effect on electronic equipment if the flip
happened in less than 30 seconds?
Thanks in advance,
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
Nothing much would happen to electronics.
However, in such a short timescale there may be some effect on large
power grids.
--
Dirk
http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
GregS
Well, you might need battery power. The atmosphere may shield partially,
buy solar wind can destroy satellites. Don't know if GPS would work, but
would certainly cause much grief.
greg
Martin Brown
> Hi
>
> this has perhaps been asked before(?)
>
> Apologies in that case.
>
> What I wanted to ask is, if earths magnetic pole now would manage to
> flip in a really quick timespan (let's say less than 5 minutes), would
> that have any effect on electronic equipment, and if so, why?
On the night side you would see global aurora for a few minutes if the
sun was suitably active. Most satellite electronics will survive all but
the nastiest solar flares.
>
> I mean I would think that the would not be any effect. After all,
> electronic equipment do not rely on earths magnetic field in some way.
> How would they?
Gauss meters, hall probes and magnetic compass devices and the like
would not be too happy. And all the shims for NMRs would need to be
redone since the Earths field would be the opposite polarity and perhaps
not at the same dip angle.
>
> Or would there be some effect on electronic equipment if the flip
> happened in less than 30 seconds?
If you flip it fast enough then you could induce damaging currents in
long conductors. That has happened in the past with te most powerful
solar flare storms over Canada eg in 1989. See for example:
http://www.spaceweather.gc.ca/se-pow-eng.php
But unless the Earth's field had a similar rate of change to that
experienced in an extreme magnetic storm I think most things would take
it in their stride. Big continental power grids with long wires would be
the most likely to drop out.
Regards,
Martin Brown
cassiope
On the older CRT scopes, you'd have to readjust the trace rotation.
Don Lancaster
It certainly would not do compasses much good.
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: d...@tinaja.com
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
RST Engineering
<sa...@temporaryinbox.com> wrote:
>Hi
>
>this has perhaps been asked before(?)
>
>Apologies in that case.
>
>What I wanted to ask is, if earths magnetic pole now would manage to
>flip in a really quick timespan (let's say less than 5 minutes), would
>that have any effect on electronic equipment, and if so, why?
Most probably not, but it would sure raise holy hell if you were
flying from New York to San Francisco and you were over Iowa when it
happened.
Jim
Rich Grise
All of the Boy Scouts would get hopelessly lost...
Cheers!
Rich
Joel Koltner
news:pan.2009.11.30...@example.net...
> All of the Boy Scouts would get hopelessly lost...
Most of them use GPS receivers these days and wouldn't know how to use a
compass in the first places. :-)
I think it's kinda cool that orienteering will probably survive indefinitely
as a sport, though.
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
Penguins would appear at the North Pole and polar bears at the South.
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Pa...@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Do not mold, findle or sputilate.
Paul Keinanen
<sa...@temporaryinbox.com> wrote:
>Hi
>
>this has perhaps been asked before(?)
>
>Apologies in that case.
>
>What I wanted to ask is, if earths magnetic pole now would manage to
>flip in a really quick timespan (let's say less than 5 minutes), would
>that have any effect on electronic equipment, and if so, why?
The only I can think about are the variosu HDTV CRT studio monitors
that required different alignment depending on the hemishpere they
were intended to be shipped.
>I mean I would think that the would not be any effect. After all,
>electronic equipment do not rely on earths magnetic field in some way.
>How would they?
>
>Or would there be some effect on electronic equipment if the flip
>happened in less than 30 seconds?
The electricty network would no doubt crash, due to the DC saturation
of transformer cores.
Currents flowing in natural gas pipelines could cause some significant
havoc.
Adrian Jansen
If you take a piece of equipment and turn it around, or over, you
reverse the field through it. Does that affect it ?
--
Regards,
Adrian Jansen adrianjansen at internode dot on dot net
Note reply address is invalid, convert address above to machine form.
Rich Grise
> JJ wrote:
>>
>> What I wanted to ask is, if earths magnetic pole now would manage to
>> flip in a really quick timespan (let's say less than 5 minutes), would
>> that have any effect on electronic equipment, and if so, why?
>>
>> I mean I would think that the would not be any effect. After all,
>> electronic equipment do not rely on earths magnetic field in some way.
>> How would they?
>>
>> Or would there be some effect on electronic equipment if the flip
>> happened in less than 30 seconds?
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>
> If you take a piece of equipment and turn it around, or over, you reverse
> the field through it. Does that affect it ?
Probably. I've moved monitors around in the office, and had to re-degauss
them.
Cheers!
Rich
Spehro Pefhany
Short Staedtler shares?
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
sp...@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
Martin Riddle
"Don Lancaster" <d...@tinaja.com> wrote in message
news:7nigt9F...@mid.individual.net...
Would magnetic north be in a different place ;)
Cheers
Tim Williams
news:hf1su1$sg2$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Would magnetic north be in a different place ;)
Hey, geographic north and magnetic north would finally be correct (north is
actually the South pole, that's why the North compass pole is attracted to
it).
Tim
--
Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk.
Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms
Paul Keinanen
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>But unless the Earth's field had a similar rate of change to that
>experienced in an extreme magnetic storm I think most things would take
>it in their stride. Big continental power grids with long wires would be
>the most likely to drop out.
Based on magnetic fields frozen into old lava fields, during a
magnetic pole flip, first the major poles get weaker and weaker and
the subpoles (such as the South Atlantic Anomaly) become real poles.
During this period there might be four, six or even more local poles,
so navigating with a magnetic compass would be a challenge, especially
when these poles may move with a considerable speed, making paper maps
obsolete quite quickly :-). During this period, Aurora Equatorialis
might be observed, when the solar wind hits the atmosphere close to
the local pole.
Finally, the flipped main poles get much stronger than the subpoles,
so the minor poles are just magnetic anomalies.
George Herold
> "Martin Riddle" <martin_...@verizon.net> wrote in message
Excellent, I wanted to post this little factoid. I 'discovered' this
when I was trying to use a compass match up sets of Helmholtz coils.
Drove me 'nuts' for a day or so.
George H.
Bill Miller
"JJ" <sa...@temporaryinbox.com> wrote in message
news:49680269-4c38-4569...@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
If you are alive during the next flip, it may be that the *least* of your
worries may be the effect on electronic equipment.
The Earth's magnetic field acts like an invisible protective shield that
"steers" the solar wind -- and the high energy particles contained
therein -- around and away from the surface. During a reversal, the position
and intensity of this "shield" will change.
It is possible that during this change, the Earth -- and the critters living
on it -- may be subjected to anything from inconvenient levels of radition
to life-threatening and/or mutation-inducing doses.
The reason that I bring this up is that there appears to be an uncomfortably
close relationship between previous "flips" and hitherto-unexplained
mass-extinctions and the subsequent emergance of entirely new species.
Everyone (except Al Gore) understands that correlation between events is not
the same as causality. But there seem to be enough multiple-event
correlation to suggest a causal relationship.
Sorry to mess up the holidays with this.
BTW, some folks think we are already overdue for the next flip. :-)
Bill Miller
The Great Attractor
Some folks say that even the current crop of phenomena point toward the
even already beginning.
Wondering... perhaps... could it coincide with our solar system (and
us) passing from one side of the galactic equator to the other?
Even the lunacy of folks like Gore, and the 'scientists' that gave him
the peace prize might well be attributable to the approaching 'event'
having an affect on some folks' minds.
If it is controlled by our position within the galaxy itself, we are
essentially screwed. Nothing will be the same, regardless of whether you
stereo actually works or not.
Paul Keinanen
<billmil...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>"JJ" <sa...@temporaryinbox.com> wrote in message
>news:49680269-4c38-4569...@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>> Hi
>>
>> this has perhaps been asked before(?)
>>
>> Apologies in that case.
>>
>> What I wanted to ask is, if earths magnetic pole now would manage to
>> flip in a really quick timespan (let's say less than 5 minutes), would
>> that have any effect on electronic equipment, and if so, why?
>>
>> I mean I would think that the would not be any effect. After all,
>> electronic equipment do not rely on earths magnetic field in some way.
>> How would they?
>>
>> Or would there be some effect on electronic equipment if the flip
>> happened in less than 30 seconds?
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>
>If you are alive during the next flip, it may be that the *least* of your
>worries may be the effect on electronic equipment.
>
>The Earth's magnetic field acts like an invisible protective shield that
>"steers" the solar wind -- and the high energy particles contained
>therein -- around and away from the surface. During a reversal, the position
>and intensity of this "shield" will change.
During the reversals, the field strength drops significantly and some
minor magnetic anomalies (like the South Atlantic Anomaly) are the
strongest poles, so there might be four, six or even more weak "poles"
during the reversal.
While during normal magnetic fields, part of the charged particles are
routed around the Earth into the tail, part of particles are trapped
into the Van Allen radiation belts and when the solar wind is strong
enough, part of these particles penetrates into the atmosphere,
creating aurora borealis/australis. The aurora is visible on a ring
around the magnetic poles known as aurora oval
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DEaurora.gif
The atmosphere quite effectively blocks these charged particles, so no
at lest obvious mutations are observed in the area covered by the
aurora oval. However, at least some airlines have restrictions how
often pregnant flight personnel are allowed to cross the polar region,
since above 10 km altitude, the radiation levels are much higher than
on the surface of the earth.
>It is possible that during this change, the Earth -- and the critters living
>on it -- may be subjected to anything from inconvenient levels of radition
>to life-threatening and/or mutation-inducing doses.
During the reversal, there are likely to be aurora rings around the
minor poles as well or possibly aurora will be observed on the whole
planet.
There are typically several reversals in a million years, but not so
frequent extinctions. The atmosphere is quite capable of stopping
those charged particles.
Lunar astronauts even survived several days in an aluminum can outside
of the protection of the Earths magnetic field, while the Sun was
inactive. Granted, they would have been killed, if the Sun had erupted
during the flight.
Jonah Thomas
> During the reversals, the field strength drops significantly and some
> minor magnetic anomalies (like the South Atlantic Anomaly) are the
> strongest poles, so there might be four, six or even more weak "poles"
> during the reversal.
>
> While during normal magnetic fields, part of the charged particles are
> routed around the Earth into the tail, part of particles are trapped
> into the Van Allen radiation belts and when the solar wind is strong
> enough, part of these particles penetrates into the atmosphere,
> creating aurora borealis/australis. The aurora is visible on a ring
> around the magnetic poles known as aurora oval
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DEaurora.gif
>
> The atmosphere quite effectively blocks these charged particles, so no
> at lest obvious mutations are observed in the area covered by the
> aurora oval. However, at least some airlines have restrictions how
> often pregnant flight personnel are allowed to cross the polar region,
> since above 10 km altitude, the radiation levels are much higher than
> on the surface of the earth.
It should be possible to do simulations that would get more precise
results than your handwaving. The arctic ions have had their direction
changed and the ones from the sun would have come in at an oblique angle
anyway, passing thruogh lots and lots of air. Noon on the equator would
be a shorter path. Etc. I don't know the answer here but I don't think
you do either.
> >It is possible that during this change, the Earth -- and the critters
> >living on it -- may be subjected to anything from inconvenient levels
> >of radition to life-threatening and/or mutation-inducing doses.
>
> During the reversal, there are likely to be aurora rings around the
> minor poles as well or possibly aurora will be observed on the whole
> planet.
>
> There are typically several reversals in a million years, but not so
> frequent extinctions. The atmosphere is quite capable of stopping
> those charged particles.
Agreed, we don't have big extinction events nearly as often as we have
magnetic reversals. Thank god or whoever.
> Lunar astronauts even survived several days in an aluminum can outside
> of the protection of the Earths magnetic field, while the Sun was
> inactive. Granted, they would have been killed, if the Sun had erupted
> during the flight.
And the sun has its magnetic reversal roughly every 11 years? So if the
earth's reversal takes more than say 12 years we're certain to
experience such an eruption.... It would be important to us how long the
reversal takes. Of course, this is a long-term concern. In the short run
I care more about my job. And compared to the magnetic reversal, we're
going to burn all the oil in the short run.
Bill Miller
"Jonah Thomas" <jeth...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:20091225000712.6...@gmail.com...
> Paul Keinanen <kein...@sci.fi> wrote:
>
>> >>
>> The atmosphere quite effectively blocks these charged particles,
Well... yes, but that's not the entire story. A fairly energetic interaction
is taking place "up there" between the high energy particles and the
atmosphere. The most well known is probably the interaction between High
Energy stuff and Nitrogen. The result is C14. This is radioactive and drifts
slowly down to the ground where some of it gets ingested by living things.
When they stop living, they stop ingesting it and it decays and we have a
neat way of measuring how long ago it happened.
Now crank up the impacts a few thousandfold (as might happen during a
reversal -- or a partial reversal called an "excursion".) We now have a
"rain" of radioactive Carbon. Oh, and some other radioactive stuff like
Strontium and Iridium and Berrylium. BTW the KT layer contains these plus
others.
>>so no
>> at lest obvious mutations are observed in the area covered by the
>> aurora oval. However, at least some airlines have restrictions how
>> often pregnant flight personnel are allowed to cross the polar region,
>> since above 10 km altitude, the radiation levels are much higher than
>> on the surface of the earth.
It is left as an exercise for the student to discuss the likely effects of
"rains" of radioactive elements on the life expectancy of existing life
forms as well as the likelihood of mutations.
>
> It should be possible to do simulations that would get more precise
> results than your handwaving. The arctic ions have had their direction
> changed and the ones from the sun would have come in at an oblique angle
> anyway, passing thruogh lots and lots of air. Noon on the equator would
> be a shorter path. Etc. I don't know the answer here but I don't think
> you do either.
NASA satellites are currently exploring the "bow wave" where the solar wind
is in approximate balance with the magnetosphere. After some exciting
pictures of *very* powerful explosions (their term) and "magnetic ropes,"
the literature seems to have been (oddly?) silent about the nature of these
explosions and what kinds of particles (if any) that have been generated.
>> >It is possible that during this change, the Earth -- and the critters
>> >living on it -- may be subjected to anything from inconvenient levels
>> >of radition to life-threatening and/or mutation-inducing doses.
>>
>> During the reversal, there are likely to be aurora rings around the
>> minor poles as well or possibly aurora will be observed on the whole
>> planet.
>>
>> There are typically several reversals in a million years, but not so
>> frequent extinctions.
See below.
>>The atmosphere is quite capable of stopping
>> those charged particles.
Agreed. But what about the atmosphere's ability to stop the *results* of
theses charged particles that impact -- and change -- the elements?
Empirically, we know that a light "rain" of C14 drizzles more-or-less
constantly onto us all. IOW the atmosphere may great at shielding us from
direct damage, but is less effectivein shielding us from fallout.
> Agreed, we don't have big extinction events nearly as often as we have
> magnetic reversals. Thank god or whoever.
As far as reversals go, this is "sorta" correct. But magnetic excursions are
far more common.
The Earth precesses with a period of about 23,000 years. The half-period of
11,500 years seems to correlate with numerous "recent" magnetic excursions
*and* with layers of sediment containing the above-mentioned elements. Here
is a representative list: (KYA = Kilo Years Ago) The names represent areas
where the magnetic anomalies were first seen .
11 KYA Gothenburg Magnetic Excursion. 70% of Large Mammal Species extinct.
Spikes in C14, Beryllium-10, Iridium. Glaciation starts and ends abruptly..
Major vulcanism and flooding.
23 KYA Mono Lake Magnetic Excursion. Euro Forest Elephant disappears, Spikes
in Be and C14. Glaciation starts. Major Vulcanism.
34 KYA Lake Mungo Magnetic Excursion, Neanderthal disappears. Spikes in Be
and C14, Short term Ice buildup then ends abruptly. Major vulcanism.
43 KYA Laschamps Magnetic Excursion. Spikes in Be and C14, Rapid onset of
glaciation.
58 KYA No Magnetic Excursion Documented. Spike in Be. Mass extinction of
giant pigs, giant baboons, three-toed horses. Ice Age ends. Major vulcanism
69 KYA No Magnetic Excursion Documented. Spike in Be. Ice Age Begins,
Yellowstone erupts
80 KYA No Magnetic Excursion Documented, Ice Age Ends,
91 KYA No Magnetic Excursion Documented, Spike in Be. Ice Age Begins
abruptly. Heavy vulcanism
103 KYA No Magnetic Excursion Documented. Spike in Be. Ice age ends.
115 KYA Blake Magnetic Reversal. Spikes in Strontium and C14. Ice age
starts. Sea levels rise and fall by abot 70 feet in less than a century.
Conclusive? Nope.
Causal? Maybe.
Reason to look closely at these events and their timing? Naw. Let's just
ignore them.
>
>> Lunar astronauts even survived several days in an aluminum can outside
>> of the protection of the Earths magnetic field, while the Sun was
>> inactive. Granted, they would have been killed, if the Sun had erupted
>> during the flight.
>
> And the sun has its magnetic reversal roughly every 11 years? So if the
> earth's reversal takes more than say 12 years we're certain to
> experience such an eruption.... It would be important to us how long the
> reversal takes. Of course, this is a long-term concern. In the short run
> I care more about my job. And compared to the magnetic reversal, we're
> going to burn all the oil in the short run.
This would be true *if* oil were a fossil fuel. There is emerging evidence
that petroleum is a naturally occurring and ongoing phenomenon based on High
heat and pressure involving Carbonates, Water and Iron (as a catalyst.)
This hypothesis has been replicated in the laboratory. And please recall
that, despite many attempts, there has not been any laboratory
authentication of the "settled science" hypothesis that petroleum is formed
by "regular" organic material that is subjected to heat and pressure. IOW,
no Dinosaurs were killed in order to fuel your automobile and heat your
house. This will be a great relief to the PETA folks! It's also probably OT.
(But that's never stopped me before!0
All the best,
Bill Miller
Jonah Thomas
> "Jonah Thomas" <jeth...@gmail.com> wrote
> > Paul Keinanen <kein...@sci.fi> wrote:
> >
> >> The atmosphere quite effectively blocks these charged particles,
> > It should be possible to do simulations that would get more precise
> > results than your handwaving. The arctic ions have had their
> > direction changed and the ones from the sun would have come in at an
> > oblique angle anyway, passing thruogh lots and lots of air. Noon on
> > the equator would be a shorter path. Etc. I don't know the answer
> > here but I don't think you do either.
>
> NASA satellites are currently exploring the "bow wave" where the solar
> wind is in approximate balance with the magnetosphere. After some
> exciting pictures of *very* powerful explosions (their term) and
> "magnetic ropes," the literature seems to have been (oddly?) silent
> about the nature of these explosions and what kinds of particles (if
> any) that have been generated.
I'll put that on my list of things to look at when I find the time. My
list of interesting science stuff has gotten too long and I have to put
most of it aside if I'm going to look at anything in sufficient depth.
I'll look for an opportunity to tie it in with something I've already
started.
Let's assume for the moment that there's something periodic here. A C14
spike indicates nitrogen exposed to neutrons. Ditto beryllium. This
could happen if the magnetic field lets more ionising radiation through,
or if there is more ionising radiation in the first place.
Iridium can come from meteorites. There have been theories connecting
the carolina bays to a recent extinction event and a proposed extended
meteor shower, but dating their formation is still pretty controversial.
It doesn't seem particularly plausible to me that an increase in
ionising radiation could trigger a magnetic reversal, but I could
vaguely imagine great big impacts doing it. Can you get a gyroscope to
flip over if you hit it with a big enough hammer? I think there may be
room for multiple explanations, assuming there's something here to
explain. On the other hand, there's so much new information coming in
that I can't process very much of it and there could easily be
definitive proof of something-or-other that I simply haven't heard
about.
> >> Lunar astronauts even survived several days in an aluminum can
> >outside> of the protection of the Earths magnetic field, while the
> >Sun was> inactive. Granted, they would have been killed, if the Sun
> >had erupted> during the flight.
> >
> > And the sun has its magnetic reversal roughly every 11 years? So if
> > the earth's reversal takes more than say 12 years we're certain to
> > experience such an eruption.... It would be important to us how long
> > the reversal takes. Of course, this is a long-term concern. In the
> > short run I care more about my job. And compared to the magnetic
> > reversal, we're going to burn all the oil in the short run.
>
> This would be true *if* oil were a fossil fuel. There is emerging
> evidence that petroleum is a naturally occurring and ongoing
> phenomenon based on High heat and pressure involving Carbonates, Water
> and Iron (as a catalyst.) This hypothesis has been replicated in the
> laboratory. And please recall that, despite many attempts, there has
> not been any laboratory authentication of the "settled science"
> hypothesis that petroleum is formed by "regular" organic material that
> is subjected to heat and pressure. IOW, no Dinosaurs were killed in
> order to fuel your automobile and heat your house.
I'd say there's pretty strong evidence that some oil has organic
sources. But that doesn't say it all does. If it turns out that oil
precursors are formed deeper and then percolate upward through the rock,
to sometimes get captured by oil domes where they gradually get
converted into polycyclic forms -- we might be able to collect more of
it in the precursor form, beyond just getting it from existing domes.
There are more exciting possibilities than I can keep track of, and I
have no idea to tell which handful of them will actually pay off.
Bill Miller
> "Bill Miller" <billmil...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> "Jonah Thomas" <jeth...@gmail.com> wrote
>> > Paul Keinanen <kein...@sci.fi> wrote:
>> >
>
> I'll put that on my list of things to look at when I find the time. My
> list of interesting science stuff has gotten too long and I have to put
> most of it aside if I'm going to look at anything in sufficient depth.
> I'll look for an opportunity to tie it in with something I've already
> started.
I have a similar list.
Agreed.
>
> Iridium can come from meteorites. There have been theories connecting
> the carolina bays to a recent extinction event and a proposed extended
> meteor shower, but dating their formation is still pretty controversial.
The physical orientation of Carolina Bays looks a *lot* like a spray of
"stuff" originating somewhere over Canada. But there appear to be no meteors
anywhere in or near any of them. There is strongly held opinion that they
are aeolian (wind) artifacts but this is unconvincing (to me) given their
orientation and quantity. Dating seems to rely on C14 of detritus found in
the bays. But if they were formed in conjunction with some type of
ionization in the upper atmosphere, then C14 dating becomes highly
problematical. There are also some near Perth, Australia. Dating unknown.
Shapes essentially identical. It's almost as though a flock of fairy tale
giants flew in formation from north to south while blowing.
Hmmm... Here's a thought. There appears to be temporal linkage with the
elimination of the Ice Shield over Canada and the Carolina Bays event(s).
What if something "blasted" into the Canadian Ice Shield?. The result might
be something like a flock of flying icebergs that then impacted the ground
over a widespread area? They hit at an angle, causing oval shaped holes with
a "lip" at the edge furthest from the impact point. Then they melt, leaving
no residue. (Sorta like the classic mystery murder weapon -- an icicle.)
> It doesn't seem particularly plausible to me that an increase in
> ionising radiation could trigger a magnetic reversal,
The reverse seems more likely.
> but I could
> vaguely imagine great big impacts doing it. Can you get a gyroscope to
> flip over if you hit it with a big enough hammer?
The hammer might not need to be very big. In Beltrami's text, "Mathematics
for Dynamic Modeling," he considers two different models for the Earth, and
shows that it takes a very small "nudge" to set things chaotically awry.
> I think there may be
> room for multiple explanations, assuming there's something here to
> explain.
Multiple explanations seem likely. But the past seems to be full of evidence
(like iridium at the KT layer) or 'buckyballs" and radioactive material at
the Clovis layer for which conventional explanations seem lacking.
It appears that the Russians may be doing just this. It can't be an accident
that WWII era Russia was extremely oil-poor, and they are now one of the
world's leading exporters. It seems that they suddenly learned where to
look!
> There are more exciting possibilities than I can keep track of, and I
> have no idea to tell which handful of them will actually pay off.
Yep. The most fascinating for me are associated with Mills' controversial
hydrino (blacklightpower.com) concepts. If he's right, then it may not
matter where oil comes from!
Bill
Bruce McFarling
wrote:
> It appears that the Russians may be doing just this. It can't be an accident
> that WWII era Russia was extremely oil-poor, and they are now one of the
> world's leading exporters. It seems that they suddenly learned where to
> look!
Yes, the reason that Hitler was striking south for the Caucasus oil
fields and the reason that Stalingrad was the decisive turning point
in the European theater of WWII was because Russia had no oil in WWII.
That's also the reason that after the tide was turned that the Soviet
T-34's, the most produced tank of WWII, was not fueled by Soviet
produced oil.
Or perhaps the reality is that the Soviet Union was the second largest
oil producer in the world in WWII, far behind the US but with over 20%
more production than the UK (which at the time was in possession of
the major producing Middle Eastern oil fields in Iran (ex-Persia) from
1908 and Saudi Arabia from 1938), and producing 290%+ more than the
European Axis production of crude oil ... 180% as much as the European
Axis including synthetic, 290% as much crude oil as the European Axis.
Soviet Oil at managed prices was the cornerstone of the COMECON from
the 1950's through the 1980's and depletion of the Soviet Union's
original inexpensive to pump oil was offset through the 1970's by
rising oil prices, financing the growing trade deficit with the West
in manufactures until the opening of the spigot by Saudi Arabia a few
years into the 1980's let to a collapse in the profitability of Soviet
oil fields and the economic crisis that paved the way for first
Perestroika and then the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and then the
Soviet Union itself.
If you are going to spout loose speculations premised on falsehoods
that can be uncovered in a few minutes searching, could it be loose
speculations about Forth?
don
> If you are going to spout loose speculations premised on falsehoods
> that can be uncovered in a few minutes searching, could it be loose
> speculations about Forth?
Oil is not a write only language.
don
Bruce McFarling
Indeed, at the pace of geological oil formation its more like an
already written, read once language, despite massive wishful thinking
to the contrary.
Archimedes' Lever
Let's ask Peat Moss, and see what he has to say...
Oh wait... that's coal. :-)
Sylvia Else
> Hi
>
> this has perhaps been asked before(?)
>
> Apologies in that case.
>
> What I wanted to ask is, if earths magnetic pole now would manage to
> flip in a really quick timespan (let's say less than 5 minutes), would
> that have any effect on electronic equipment, and if so, why?
>
> I mean I would think that the would not be any effect. After all,
> electronic equipment do not rely on earths magnetic field in some way.
> How would they?
>
> Or would there be some effect on electronic equipment if the flip
> happened in less than 30 seconds?
>
> Thanks in advance,
Some people would have to turn their televisions off and on at the
mains, so that they get degaussed.
A number of perfectly good TVs would get put out for refuse collection,
from where they could be recycled by those in the know.
Sylvia.
Archimedes' Lever
The number of dopes that still have CRTs by that time all deserve
whatever cluelessness they have at the time.
The rest of us will be just fine display wise.
Sylvia Else
By what time. The OP didn't specify when this hypothetical event might
occur. Could be tomorrow.
CRT TVs work fine. There's nothing much to be gained by replacing them
before they break.
Sylvia.
Archimedes' Lever
<syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
The topic was pole reversal, which has pretty much been accepted as
being coincident with our crossing through the Galactic Equator.
So, IF you know what that is, you might be able to get back on track.
That would be 2012, if you are still in the dark.
Hell, most folks with half a brain have already phased CRTs out of
their lives.
Paul Keinanen
<OneBi...@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:
>
> The topic was pole reversal, which has pretty much been accepted as
>being coincident with our crossing through the Galactic Equator.
Our solar system makes a full period around the galaxy in about 200
million years, so if the orbital plane is inclined against the
galactic plane, our solar system will cross the galactic plane about
every 100 million years.
On the other hand, there has been 2-4 polar flips in a million years.
Archimedes' Lever
wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 19:39:36 -0800, Archimedes' Lever
><OneBi...@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:
>
>>
>> The topic was pole reversal, which has pretty much been accepted as
>>being coincident with our crossing through the Galactic Equator.
>
>Our solar system makes a full period around the galaxy in about 200
>million years,
So what? The discussion is not about the rotational speed of the
galaxy, and the rotational speed of the galaxy has nothing to do with how
often we pass above or back below the galactic equator.
> so if the orbital plane is inclined against the
>galactic plane, our solar system will cross the galactic plane about
>every 100 million years.
Excpt that you logic is flawed. The arm of the galaxy we are in does
not follow a path that matches the rotational period of the galaxy. It
never did. The arm itself rotates as a whole at that speed, but the
place the arm sits with respect to the galactic equator rises and fall
above and below that equator at a vastly different rate.
>
>On the other hand, there has been 2-4 polar flips in a million years.
You're an idiot. The arm of the galaxy our solar system is in follows
a sinusoidal trail and that trail rises above and falls below the
galactic equator about once every twenty six thousand years. That, by
the way, matches the cycle rate of pole reversals. That, by the way, is
a known fact as well. The galaxy forms a disc like shape, but the
"thickness" of that disc is nebulous. ALL of the arms of the galaxy move
through this "thickness" differently, but the real equator of the galaxy
as a whole is a very thinly defined disc from an energy POV. So, as we
near that more energetic equatorial disc, we WILL be affected more by it,
and our planets poles will be performing a reversal as a result, and that
result will be held in place by our new position with respect to said
equatorial plane.
I find it very funny that so many folks that claim to have a great
depth of knowledge about physics still find it so hard to believe that
the forces at the center of our galaxy can affect us so far away.
I find it impossible to ever consider that it would not. After all, it
IS the same force that holds all the arms of the galaxy where they are.
If it were as weak a force as you idiots portray it, there would be no
galaxies anywhere in the universe. It would ALL be a homogeneous
distribution
Sylvia Else
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 13:42:39 +0200, Paul Keinanen <kein...@sci.fi>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 19:39:36 -0800, Archimedes' Lever
>> <OneBi...@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:
>>
>>> The topic was pole reversal, which has pretty much been accepted as
>>> being coincident with our crossing through the Galactic Equator.
>> Our solar system makes a full period around the galaxy in about 200
>> million years,
>
> So what? The discussion is not about the rotational speed of the
> galaxy, and the rotational speed of the galaxy has nothing to do with how
> often we pass above or back below the galactic equator.
Where did he mention the rotational speed of the galaxy? Indeed there is
no such thing anyway - it's not a solid object. You might as well talk
about the rotational speed of the solar system.
Sylvia.
Archimedes' Lever
Learn to read, Sylvia. "Our solar system makes a full period around
Sylvia Else
That's what the previous poster said. Then you introduced the totally
meaningless concept of the rotational speed of the galaxly.
Sylvia.
Archimedes' Lever
<syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>Archimedes' Lever wrote:
>> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 12:04:46 +1100, Sylvia Else
>> <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>>
>>> Archimedes' Lever wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 13:42:39 +0200, Paul Keinanen <kein...@sci.fi>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 19:39:36 -0800, Archimedes' Lever
>>>>> <OneBi...@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The topic was pole reversal, which has pretty much been accepted as
>>>>>> being coincident with our crossing through the Galactic Equator.
>>>>> Our solar system makes a full period around the galaxy in about 200
>>>>> million years,
>>>> So what? The discussion is not about the rotational speed of the
>>>> galaxy, and the rotational speed of the galaxy has nothing to do with how
>>>> often we pass above or back below the galactic equator.
>>> Where did he mention the rotational speed of the galaxy? Indeed there is
>>> no such thing anyway - it's not a solid object. You might as well talk
>>> about the rotational speed of the solar system.
>>>
>>> Sylvia.
>>
>>
>> Learn to read, Sylvia. "Our solar system makes a full period around
>> the galaxy in about 200 million years,"
>
>That's what the previous poster said.
No shit, Dip Tracy. I was quoting HIM, idiot! The "period the Earth
takes to get around the galaxy" IS "the rotational speed of the galaxy".
Any first year astro student knows that. Your grasp of physics is
either near nil, or you just have reading comprehension issues.
> Then you introduced the totally
>meaningless concept of the rotational speed of the galaxly.
No, I didn't, you dippy bitch. I *interpreted* his remark CORRECTLY.
You have yet to do so. Come back again with more stupidity, and I will
again call you the stupid ditz that you are making yourself out to be.
>Sylvia.
Jeez, you are a total idiot. His remark IS a declaration of the
rotational speed of the galaxy, you fucking dope.
Even after it was spelled out for you TWICE!
Paul Keinanen
<OneBi...@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:
>On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 13:42:39 +0200, Paul Keinanen <kein...@sci.fi>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 19:39:36 -0800, Archimedes' Lever
>><OneBi...@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The topic was pole reversal, which has pretty much been accepted as
>>>being coincident with our crossing through the Galactic Equator.
>>
>>Our solar system makes a full period around the galaxy in about 200
>>million years,
>
> So what? The discussion is not about the rotational speed of the
>galaxy, and the rotational speed of the galaxy has nothing to do with how
>often we pass above or back below the galactic equator.
>
>> so if the orbital plane is inclined against the
>>galactic plane, our solar system will cross the galactic plane about
>>every 100 million years.
>
> Excpt that you logic is flawed. The arm of the galaxy we are in does
>not follow a path that matches the rotational period of the galaxy. It
>never did. The arm itself rotates as a whole at that speed, but the
>place the arm sits with respect to the galactic equator rises and fall
>above and below that equator at a vastly different rate.
While this comment does not affect you, it may be interesting for
others reading this thread to look at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way#Sun.27s_location_and_neighborhood
and notice that the galactic year is currently assumed to be 225-250
million years, thus slightly more that I learned a few decades ago in
the school.
The claim that there are about 2.7 oscillations above and below the
orbital plane is new to me, so we are talking about 50-100 million
years. How is this possible ? By applying gravity forces or some
postulated dark energy or dark mass assumptions ?
>>On the other hand, there has been 2-4 polar flips in a million years.
Which is about 2 orders of magnitude less compared to the crossing of
the galactic plane so there is not even a weak correlation between the
events and even harder to claim that the galactic plane crossing
caused the magnetic field flips or mass extinctions of some spices.
> You're an idiot.
Thank you. That is your opinion, I doubt that I could do anything to
change that attitude and why should I even care :-)
>The arm of the galaxy our solar system is in follows
>a sinusoidal trail and that trail rises above and falls below the
>galactic equator about once every twenty six thousand years.
Rotating around what ? Some hypothetical dark matter or dark energy ?
Or are you trying to create some pre-keplerian epicyclic theory ?
Sylvia Else
Objects at different distances from the centre of the galaxy will have
different orbital periods. The time the Earth takes to go around the
galaxy will be different the time other objects take. There is no reason
to deem that the Earth's orbital period is the period of rotation of the
galaxy, and since different objects have different periods, the galaxy
does not have a rotational speed.
Sylvia.
Archimedes' Lever
wrote:
>notice that the galactic year is currently assumed to be 225-250
>million years, thus slightly more that I learned a few decades ago in
>the school.
Yes, and the "Galactic Year" and the period which our solar system AND
the arm of the galaxy we are in rises above, and falls below the galactic
equator are two VERY different figures.
This end of this arm of our galaxy rides a sine wave with a period of
about 52,000 years. That means we are due for a pole reversal about once
every 26,000 years.
Guess what is due, and guess where we are with reference to the rest of
the galaxy.
When we get to the other side of that equator, which will take some time
before the effect rears its ugly head, we will see that our position in
the galaxy DOES have much to do with our planets own magnetic field.
Archimedes' Lever
wrote:
>The claim that there are about 2.7 oscillations above and below the
>orbital plane is new to me,
It is a known fact that this end of this arm of the galaxy rides a
sinusoidal path.
Why do you think that nearly every astronomer on the planet is aware
that we are passing from below (or above) the galactic equator to above
(or below) it.
They, like the Mayans, also know the period of that path. It is not the
same as the rate at which the entire galaxy spins, nor is it the same as
the rate which the Earth and this solar system orbits the galactic
center.
It is completely unrelated.
Archimedes' Lever
wrote:
> so we are talking about 50-100 million
>years. How is this possible ? By applying gravity forces or some
>postulated dark energy or dark mass assumptions ?
"We" never said any such thing. Neither did any of the "we" that makes
up the astrological community.
They, in fact, state that all the elements of the galaxy rotate about
its center at the same rotational rate, despite them thinking it would
not. And yes, dark matter, and dark energy are contributors.
It is like the foam on a cup of tea. Stir it, then disturb the spin and
remove the stirrer. Done right, one can see that all the foam swirls in
a slurry of foam and tea.
The tea is the dark matter. The tea is the part we do not see. The
tea is also spinning at the same rate, carrying all of our "known" mass
along with it. That slurry is the part we are only now becoming aware
of.
Archimedes' Lever
wrote:
>>>On the other hand, there has been 2-4 polar flips in a million years.
This is wrong. There have been far more. It was even once thought
that the period was about 10,000 years.
So all of the following is moot.
>
>Which is about 2 orders of magnitude less compared to the crossing of
>the galactic plane so there is not even a weak correlation between the
>events and even harder to claim that the galactic plane crossing
>caused the magnetic field flips or mass extinctions of some spices.
Also, nobody said a goddamned thing about any fucking extinctions.
Especially not extinctions of spices.
I like spicy food.
Rich Webb
<syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
Arguing with Archie or any of his dozens of sockpuppets (some of whom
may argue with each other in a given thread) is pointless. He is a
troll. He just wants to argue. He'll claim the sky is green and the sun
rises in the west if he can get some poor soul to try to "correct" him.
He doesn't care.
His puppets do shift over time. In the last month, in the groups that I
follow, he has used (in descending order of frequency):
Archimedes' Lever <OneBi...@InfiniteSeries.Org>
lurch <lu...@yourangcousinitslibrary.org>
Son of a Sea Cook <NotaBr...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
UltimatePatriot <Ultimat...@thebestcountry.org>
MeowSayTongue <MeowSa...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
Bart! <B@rt_The_Sheriff_Is_A_Nig***!.org>
TheJoker <Leonardoofthe...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
100WattDarkSucker <100WattD...@thebigbarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
Bungalow Bill <Bugal...@AbbeyRoad.UKCOM>
Corbomite Carrie <Corb...@maneuver.org>
HiggsField <higgs...@whutthableapduyoukno.org>
CellShocked <cells...@thecellvalueattheendofthespreadsheet.org>
Pieyed Piper <pieye...@thebongshopattheendoftheuniverse.org>
StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt <Zarat...@thusspoke.org>
The Great Attractor
<Sup...@ssiveBlackHoleAtTheCenterOfTheMilkyWayGalaxy.org>
TheGlimmerMan <justag...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
Just killfile or ignore him.
--
Rich Webb Norfolk, VA
Archimedes' Lever
wrote:
>Rotating around what ? Some hypothetical dark matter or dark energy ?
>Or are you trying to create some pre-keplerian epicyclic theory ?
Are you that thick? It is a KNOWN FACT that this end of this arm of
our galaxy, which happens to be the one WE reside in, follows a
sinusoidal path through space, with respect to the galactic center
(equatorial plane).
Christ, dude! Even the Mayans knew that, and they didn't even have
optics to look at things with!
What the fuck bent reality are YOU trying to "create"?
As a side note, you do NOT need to put a space between you punctuation
and the end of the sentence.
Who the fuck taught you asswipes that do that such a stupid thing?
Do you have a problem seeing my question mark above? <or here? <or here
What a fucking bent mentality.
Archimedes' Lever
<syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>Objects at different distances from the centre of the galaxy will have
>different orbital periods.
I suggest that you retake any course you may have been present at.
The objects at different distances will have different velocities with
respect to local space. On the whole, the entire galaxy rotates at the
same rotational (orbital) period.
Otherwise, the arms of the galaxy would disperse or collide.
All observations of ours and other galaxies indicate that they all
rotate TOGETHER.
You guys should watch the discovery channel or other such program to
re-bolster anything that you may have glanced over in your formative
years.
Yes, it was obviously just a glance, or you would have retained more of
the facts.
krw
But the sky is green in the universe of AlwaysWrong and the sun does
rise in the West on the planet of DimBulb.
>His puppets do shift over time. In the last month, in the groups that I
>follow, he has used (in descending order of frequency):
See Michael Terrel's posts for a complete list of Mrs. DimBulb's
laundry.
Archimedes' Lever
<bbe...@mapson.nozirev.ten> wrote:
>(some of whom
>may argue with each other in a given thread)
You're an idiot, and you are confusing me with some other person you
spent time in Usenet attacking.
Your mother should be jailed as a felon for the offense of not flushing
your retarded ass, the moment she shat you out of her retarded ass.
Archimedes' Lever
<bbe...@mapson.nozirev.ten> wrote:
> in the groups that I
>follow, he has used (in descending order of frequency):
Sounds like a case for stalking to me.
You sure you want to tread down this path, little boy?
krw
<OneBi...@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:
>On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 08:48:11 -0500, Rich Webb
><bbe...@mapson.nozirev.ten> wrote:
>
>> in the groups that I
>>follow, he has used (in descending order of frequency):
>
>
> Sounds like a case for stalking to me.
One can't avoid crossing your path, DimBulb.
> You sure you want to tread down this path, little boy?
Yes. File a complaint, AlwaysWrong. This should be a real
knee-slapper! What a blowhard, DimBulb.
Michael A. Terrell
Why not. He blows everything else.
--
Greed is the root of all eBay.
JosephKK
Now if we could get him to tango with Slowman, it would produce
endless hours of "entertainment".
Michael A. Terrell
Stupidity squared is a dangerous thing!
Sylvia Else
> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 21:36:18 +1100, Sylvia Else
> <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>
>> Objects at different distances from the centre of the galaxy will have
>> different orbital periods.
>
>
> I suggest that you retake any course you may have been present at.
>
> The objects at different distances will have different velocities with
> respect to local space.
"Local space" has a velocity?
On the whole, the entire galaxy rotates at the
> same rotational (orbital) period.
>
> Otherwise, the arms of the galaxy would disperse or collide.
Depends what the arms are. They may be shock waves, or something like that.
But I rather suspect now that you're delibrately arguing a position that
you know very well is untenable.
Sylvia.
krw
Fairies do.
Michael A. Terrell
krw wrote:
>
> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 17:38:52 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
> <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >krw wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 12:31:30 -0800, Archimedes' Lever
> >> <OneBi...@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 08:48:11 -0500, Rich Webb
> >> ><bbe...@mapson.nozirev.ten> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> in the groups that I
> >> >>follow, he has used (in descending order of frequency):
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Sounds like a case for stalking to me.
> >>
> >> One can't avoid crossing your path, DimBulb.
> >>
> >> > You sure you want to tread down this path, little boy?
> >>
> >> Yes. File a complaint, AlwaysWrong. This should be a real
> >> knee-slapper! What a blowhard, DimBulb.
> >
> >
> > Why not. He blows everything else.
>
> Fairies do.
It's rare to find a fairy so rude. Or Stupid. Must be an Obama
loving Democrat.
Archimedes' Lever
Webb is almost as retarded as you are, Williams.
krw
<mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Aren't they all?
krw
<OneBi...@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:
>On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 14:49:22 -0600, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 12:31:30 -0800, Archimedes' Lever
>><OneBi...@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 08:48:11 -0500, Rich Webb
>>><bbe...@mapson.nozirev.ten> wrote:
>>>
>>>> in the groups that I
>>>>follow, he has used (in descending order of frequency):
>>>
>>>
>>> Sounds like a case for stalking to me.
>>
>>One can't avoid crossing your path, DimBulb.
>>
>>> You sure you want to tread down this path, little boy?
>>
>>Yes. File a complaint, AlwaysWrong. This should be a real
>>knee-slapper! What a blowhard, DimBulb.
>>
>
> Webb is almost as retarded as you are, Williams.
He is right, of course, AlwaysWrong. He must be since you're always
wrong.
Archimedes' Lever
wrote:
>
>Now if we could get him to tango with Slowman, it would produce
>endless hours of "entertainment".
Yeah, sure bub. Ten year old mentalities like yours and most of the
other total retards in this group are pretty much par for the course for
you wussy boys. There are not very many among you that do not express
severe character flaws at just about every turn.
Archimedes' Lever
<mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> Stupidity squared is a dangerous thing!
>
You, ThompsonTard, and K-Tard are utter stupidity cubed.
Shame that we couldn't send your stinking cube through a car crusher
and make it smaller, and a lot less invasive into Usenet.
Archimedes' Lever
<syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>Archimedes' Lever wrote:
>> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 21:36:18 +1100, Sylvia Else
>> <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>>
>>> Objects at different distances from the centre of the galaxy will have
>>> different orbital periods.
>>
>>
>> I suggest that you retake any course you may have been present at.
>>
>> The objects at different distances will have different velocities with
>> respect to local space.
>
>"Local space" has a velocity?
Dumb ditz. Leave the group and go to some fucking kiddie group.
*WE* move through local space at a given velocity. Other elements of
the galaxy move through their local space at their velocity. Any monkey
could have gotten that.
>
> On the whole, the entire galaxy rotates at the
>> same rotational (orbital) period.
>>
>> Otherwise, the arms of the galaxy would disperse or collide.
>
>Depends what the arms are. They may be shock waves, or something like that.
The arms are the parts of the galaxy. I see that you also express zero
common sense as well. Any monkey could have interpreted that.
>
>But I rather suspect now that you're delibrately arguing a position that
>you know very well is untenable.
You're a goddamned idiot. A galaxy... the entire galaxy rotates around
its axis at the same spin rate. That means that ALL the elements within
it move at different rates with respect to each other, depending on their
distance from that center.
Think of a large diameter bike tire. The rim moves faster than the
center hub, yet the entire assembly rotates at the same rotational
period.
Got a clue now? And like you would know anything about what is or is
not tenable.
UltimatePatriot
You must be talking about each other.
I am not a fairy, and I voted for McCain.
You are obviously oblivious to all the posts that I made where I
expressed my opinion about the Obama retard's character as well.
*I* remember a BOMBER, and I was the same age as he. Maybe his mommy,
who could afford to send him to Harvard, could not afford a television
set.
Alas, the net result of your post is that you both show the group that
The Trinity of Immaturity Cubed never ceases to post their immature
horseshit into these groups on a daily basis.
krw
No, AlwaysWrong, we're talking about the fairy DimBulb. I wouldn't
expect you to comprehend the thread, though.
> I am not a fairy, and I voted for McCain.
You lust after McCain too? Seek help!
> You are obviously oblivious to all the posts that I made where I
>expressed my opinion about the Obama retard's character as well.
> *I* remember a BOMBER, and I was the same age as he. Maybe his mommy,
>who could afford to send him to Harvard, could not afford a television
>set.
>
> Alas, the net result of your post is that you both show the group that
>The Trinity of Immaturity Cubed never ceases to post their immature
>horseshit into these groups on a daily basis.
You could leave, fairy DimBulb.
Sylvia Else
> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 11:20:18 +1100, Sylvia Else
> <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>
>> Archimedes' Lever wrote:
>>> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 21:36:18 +1100, Sylvia Else
>>> <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Objects at different distances from the centre of the galaxy will have
>>>> different orbital periods.
>>>
>>> I suggest that you retake any course you may have been present at.
>>>
>>> The objects at different distances will have different velocities with
>>> respect to local space.
>> "Local space" has a velocity?
>
> Dumb ditz. Leave the group and go to some fucking kiddie group.
>
> *WE* move through local space at a given velocity. Other elements of
> the galaxy move through their local space at their velocity. Any monkey
> could have gotten that.
Given velocity relative to what?
Sylvia.
Archimedes' Lever
<syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
Are you telling this scientific Usenet community that you are
completely unaware that this solar system is moving through space?
Much less that it is moving along with the rest of the galaxy elements.
Do you even know that Andromeda is moving toward us, and us toward it?
Sylvia Else
So we're moving relative to each other. That's not exactly news to me.
You said we're moving through local space at a given velocity.
Archimedes' Lever
<syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
Is there even ONE neuron inside that 4 inch thick skull bone?
Sylvia Else
Wouldn't it take more than one neuron for me to be able to post here?
C'mon. It's a simple question. Given velocity relative to what?
Sylvia.
krw
DimBulb, you're the one with the lonely neuron. Don't project your
deficiencies onto others.
Archimedes' Lever
<syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>
>Wouldn't it take more than one neuron for me to be able to post here?
With so many posting here that have no plurality of them that properly
function, you included, no.
>C'mon. It's a simple question. Given velocity relative to what?
You simply cannot grasp the concept that open space is what everything
in it moves through.
That means that every star and every gas cloud and everything else in a
galaxy is moving through space, and also spinning (in the case of most
galaxies) about a central axis.
That means that each arm of the galaxy, full of billions of stars and
other galactic elements, are all moving around that axis.
Our solar system, and the local stars near us, are all moving through
space at a given velocity. It doesn't have to be relative to any fixed
object, ya dingy tart.
Scroll down to "Velocity"
Sylvia Else
> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 15:48:17 +1100, Sylvia Else
> <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>
>> Wouldn't it take more than one neuron for me to be able to post here?
>
> With so many posting here that have no plurality of them that properly
> function, you included, no.
>
>> C'mon. It's a simple question. Given velocity relative to what?
>
> You simply cannot grasp the concept that open space is what everything
> in it moves through.
Does everything? How can you tell whether something is moving?
You talked about a given velocity. Since velocities are always relative,
your "given velocity" must be relative to something. But you have yet to
say what.
Sylvia.
Capt. Cave Man
<syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>Archimedes' Lever wrote:
>> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 15:48:17 +1100, Sylvia Else
>> <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>>
>>> Wouldn't it take more than one neuron for me to be able to post here?
>>
>> With so many posting here that have no plurality of them that properly
>> function, you included, no.
>>
>>> C'mon. It's a simple question. Given velocity relative to what?
>>
>> You simply cannot grasp the concept that open space is what everything
>> in it moves through.
>
>Does everything?
Absolutely. There is not a single object anywhere in our universe that
is not in motion.
> How can you tell whether something is moving?
Apparently much easier and much better than you can.
>You talked about a given velocity. Since velocities are always relative,
>your "given velocity" must be relative to something. But you have yet to
>say what.
I gave you a link, and told you where to look. Can you really behave in
a way that is even thicker than your skull? I guess so.
"Astronomers believe the Milky Way is moving at approximately 630 km per
second relative to the local co-moving frame of reference that moves with
the Hubble flow."
Try visiting the link, twit.
Sylvia Else
> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 20:27:12 +1100, Sylvia Else
> <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>
>> Archimedes' Lever wrote:
>>> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 15:48:17 +1100, Sylvia Else
>>> <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Wouldn't it take more than one neuron for me to be able to post here?
>>> With so many posting here that have no plurality of them that properly
>>> function, you included, no.
>>>
>>>> C'mon. It's a simple question. Given velocity relative to what?
>>> You simply cannot grasp the concept that open space is what everything
>>> in it moves through.
>> Does everything?
>
> Absolutely. There is not a single object anywhere in our universe that
> is not in motion.
This you know because?
On the face of it, if you can identify a specific velocity that an
object has, then you can arrange for another object to be stationary.
There would then be such an object, so the claim of knowledge that one
does not already exist seems to go beyond what is reasonable.
Of course, that just begs the question of what it means to say that an
object has a velocity without specifying what it's relative to.
But the proper conclusion is that it's not sensible to talk about things
moving through space other than in the most informal terms.
>
>> How can you tell whether something is moving?
>
> Apparently much easier and much better than you can.
>
>> You talked about a given velocity. Since velocities are always relative,
>> your "given velocity" must be relative to something. But you have yet to
>> say what.
>
> I gave you a link, and told you where to look. Can you really behave in
> a way that is even thicker than your skull? I guess so.
>
> "Astronomers believe the Milky Way is moving at approximately 630 km per
> second relative to the local co-moving frame of reference that moves with
> the Hubble flow."
>
> Try visiting the link, twit.
Are you saying that the local space is that space that moves with the
common velocity relative to the Hubble flow?
Sylvia
Martin Brown
A working practical definition is relative to the surface of last
scattering responsible for the 3K cosmic microwave background. We can
see back to the point where the universe is just about transparent - the
era where electrons are captured from the plasma to form neutral atoms.
The dipole moment of that most distant temperature distribution allows
the motion of our sun and planet to be determined. The fine detail in
the CMB takes some explaining and taxes current theoretical models.
See for example: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap090906.html
More details if you look for 3K dipole anisotropy. The observed dipole
is larger than expected at about 600 km/s relative to the background.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Capt. Cave Man
<syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>> Absolutely. There is not a single object anywhere in our universe that
>> is not in motion.
>
>This you know because?
Because there is no place in the universe that is absent the attraction
of another mass.
Archimedes' Lever
<syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>
>On the face of it, if you can identify a specific velocity that an
>object has, then you can arrange for another object to be stationary.
Wrong. Just because you reference it to another local object does not
discount nor remove the fact that they are both moving. They do not have
to be moving toward or away from each other.
Capt. Cave Man
<syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>Of course, that just begs the question of what it means to say that an
>object has a velocity without specifying what it's relative to.
The speed at which the electrons and electro-chemical interactions
between your neurons could safely be argued to be without motion.
Everything else is moving.
Known fact. Sorry.
Capt. Cave Man
<syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>But the proper conclusion is that it's not sensible to talk about things
>moving through space other than in the most informal terms.
The velocity graph on the site differs with your claim.
So does every mass in existence since they came into existence
after the big bang initiated. It is ALL moving.
Alas, even your frozen crude oil flow rate velocity neurons are.
The Great Attractor
MooseFET
Take comfort in the fact that you are arguing with one of the versions
of "Always Wrong"
You are correct that the motions are relative to other bodies and not
relative to some
mythical fixed frame of reference in space. We are part of a group at
appears to be
gathering together amidst the greater collection that is flying apart.
The expansion of the universe has been explained as being caused by
our having made an
off color joke. This is why the other stars are turning red and
moving away from us.
Capt. Cave Man
wrote:
>You are correct that the motions are relative to other bodies and not
>relative to some
>mythical fixed frame of reference in space.
You're an idiot.
It is proven, and we even named telescopes after the guy, you stupid
twit.
BobW
"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:001f93c1$0$25192$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>>
>> You simply cannot grasp the concept that open space is what everything
>> in it moves through.
>
> Does everything? How can you tell whether something is moving?
>
> You talked about a given velocity. Since velocities are always relative,
> your "given velocity" must be relative to something. But you have yet to
> say what.
>
> Sylvia.
Sylvia,
You are wasting your time with this no-it-nothing. Maybe this will clear it
up for him, but more likely not:
ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES
By A. Einstein
June 30, 1905
...
Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover
any motion of the earth relatively
to the ``light medium,'' suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as
well as of mechanics possess no
properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest.
...
Bob
--
== All google group posts are automatically deleted due to spam ==
Michael A. Terrell
More proof. He left out Palin. If he wasn't a farit he would have
mentioned the woman on the ticket.
> > You are obviously oblivious to all the posts that I made where I
> >expressed my opinion about the Obama retard's character as well.
>
> > *I* remember a BOMBER, and I was the same age as he. Maybe his mommy,
> >who could afford to send him to Harvard, could not afford a television
> >set.
> >
> > Alas, the net result of your post is that you both show the group that
> >The Trinity of Immaturity Cubed never ceases to post their immature
> >horseshit into these groups on a daily basis.
>
> You could leave, fairy DimBulb.
Or just step in front of a bus.
--
Greed is the root of all eBay.
Archimedes' Lever
<mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> > I am not a fairy, and I voted for McCain.
>>
>> You lust after McCain too? Seek help!
>
>
> More proof. He left out Palin. If he wasn't a farit he would have
>mentioned the woman on the ticket.
You're a goddamned idiot, Thompson. A fucking retard as well. Also,
note that only the main candidate was mentioned by the other retard.
Try all you want, you retarded little societal fuck ups, you will still
never make a true statement about this man.
I hope your fucking hip hurts. I hope you get a staph infection and die
leaving your entire family miserable and at the same time, happy that
your stupid, immature jokes are finally no longer invading from the world
of real men.
Sylvia Else
Are you saying that the local space is that space that moves with the
Sylvia Else
Are you saying that the local space is that space that moves with the
Capt. Cave Man
<syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
Sorry, ditz, but you will no longer troll me.
Archimedes' Lever
Space doesn't move. *Objects* move through space. Pretty simple shit.
Apparently even more simple than the ability to keep from double
posting.
Sylvia Else
> On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 09:57:01 +1100, Sylvia Else
> <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>
>> Capt. Cave Man wrote:
>>> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 22:10:45 +1100, Sylvia Else
>>> <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>>>
>>>> But the proper conclusion is that it's not sensible to talk about things
>>>> moving through space other than in the most informal terms.
>>> The velocity graph on the site differs with your claim.
>>>
>>> So does every mass in existence since they came into existence
>>> after the big bang initiated. It is ALL moving.
>>>
>>> Alas, even your frozen crude oil flow rate velocity neurons are.
>> Are you saying that the local space is that space that moves with the
>> common velocity relative to the Hubble flow?
>>
>> Sylvia
>
>
> Sorry, ditz, but you will no longer troll me.
You mean you've looked back at your postings, and realised that you're
in a hole whether you say "yes" or "no".
Sylvia.
Sylvia Else
If it doesn't move, then it's the same everywhere. So why did you refer
to more than one local space ealier?
Sylvia.
Sylvia Else
Yes, but that usage is incompatible with what AL has said, so it can't
be what he meant.
Sylvia.
Capt. Cave Man
<syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
This from the ditz that stated that "space moves"?
Any cave man knows better than that.
Bwuahahahahahahahaha! I thought you were trolling, but now I see that
you really are nothing but bone between the ears.
Capt. Cave Man
<syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
Idiot. There is only ONE 'local space to any object. You are beyond
the capacity to comprehend it though. apparently, one of your parents
was not human. I'm betting dog. One of the really dumb breeds.
Sylvia Else
Do the local spaces move relative to each other?
Sylvia.
Capt. Cave Man
Bullshit, you bitch. I am the one that posted the fucking links that
back me up.
You were just too dog ditz stubborn to visit the sites, much less
actually read them. Comprehension is yet another issue entirely.
Sylvia Else
You referred to muliple local spaces. They can't all be that one.
Sylvia.
krw
<OneBi...@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 16:45:09 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
><mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>> > I am not a fairy, and I voted for McCain.
>>>
>>> You lust after McCain too? Seek help!
>>
>>
>> More proof. He left out Palin. If he wasn't a farit he would have
>>mentioned the woman on the ticket.
>
>
> You're a goddamned idiot, Thompson.
Thompson? AlwaysWrong, you're getting worse! Seek help before your
neuron expires!
>A fucking retard as well. Also,
>note that only the main candidate was mentioned by the other retard.
>Try all you want, you retarded little societal fuck ups, you will still
>never make a true statement about this man.
Now, now, DimBUlb, your neuron is getting overworked. You used "fuck"
twice. That's two of those nice Christian words in two sentences.
> I hope your fucking hip hurts.
My, how Christian of you.
>I hope you get a staph infection and die
>leaving your entire family miserable and at the same time, happy that
>your stupid, immature jokes are finally no longer invading from the world
More nice Christian talk. Does mommy know you know the "F" word?
She'll wash your mouth out with soap and take your hamper rights away
if she finds out, DimBulb.
>of real men.
You wouldn't know anything about real men, fairy DimBulb.