Honest Question...Poleshift and the Pyramids...Pole/Axis shift in Cayce quotes
Nancy Lieder
> Since the Zeta's are so into magnetic fields, I'm surprised
> that they don't know that Auroras are downward flowing
> electrons, accelerated by the electric fields in the Earth's
> magnetosphere hitting the upper atmosphere.
Another THEORY, Jim. Do you charge your battery by this? Something
other than a theory, please.
In Article <3BD8CC93...@home.com> Jim wrote:
> It is not uncommon for Aurora alerts days in
> advance when solar flares are observed. There have been
> several this year, accurately predicting Aurora activity.
> The Zetas didn't know this?
Here we go again, with a theory based on a THEORY. What do solar flares
have to do with magnetism? Please see the Pole Shifts in the Sun
thread.
In Article <3BD8CC93...@home.com> Jim wrote:
> Light can be bent however. Astronomers use a technique
> called Gravitational Lensing to view distant objects. In a
> way, the light from the universe is seen in a warped way,
> although not really confusing. Astronomers have learned
> to use this to their advantage. The Zetas didn't know this
> either?
Gee, I as a kid new this when I looked at my feet in the water! This is
only the light rays that REACH the astronomer's however, who might also
be standing in the water and staring at their feet to see the light
bending effect. Is this supposed to prove something, Jim?
In Article <3BD8CC93...@home.com> Jim wrote:
> And what glare is happening at the equator to cover the
> Auroras? Do the people who live along the equator know
> about this glare? Does this mean they have to wear
> sunglasses at night?
Tell you what, I'll shin a spotlight in your eyes and ask you to tell me
about a candle flickering in the corner. Maybe wearing sunglasses will
help?
In Article <3BD8CC93...@home.com> Jim wrote:
> Clear Skies
> Jim
Well, that won't help if you have a closed mind.
Clear Thinking,
Nancy
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
JTRIV
> In Article <3BD8CC93...@home.com> Jim wrote:
> > Since the Zeta's are so into magnetic fields, I'm surprised
> > that they don't know that Auroras are downward flowing
> > electrons, accelerated by the electric fields in the Earth's
> > magnetosphere hitting the upper atmosphere.
>
> Another THEORY, Jim. Do you charge your battery by this? Something
> other than a theory, please.
Nope, not a theory. What creates the Auroras is a well know fact.
>
>
> In Article <3BD8CC93...@home.com> Jim wrote:
> > It is not uncommon for Aurora alerts days in
> > advance when solar flares are observed. There have been
> > several this year, accurately predicting Aurora activity.
> > The Zetas didn't know this?
>
> Here we go again, with a theory based on a THEORY. What do solar flares
> have to do with magnetism? Please see the Pole Shifts in the Sun
> thread.
More facts, not theories. The particles from solar flares reaching the earth are know to
cause Aurora activity. This is proven on a regular basis as observed solar flares are
followed by Aurora activity just as predicted.
>
>
> In Article <3BD8CC93...@home.com> Jim wrote:
> > Light can be bent however. Astronomers use a technique
> > called Gravitational Lensing to view distant objects. In a
> > way, the light from the universe is seen in a warped way,
> > although not really confusing. Astronomers have learned
> > to use this to their advantage. The Zetas didn't know this
> > either?
>
> Gee, I as a kid new this when I looked at my feet in the water! This is
> only the light rays that REACH the astronomer's however, who might also
> be standing in the water and staring at their feet to see the light
> bending effect. Is this supposed to prove something, Jim?
>
Well, I was talking about light being bent by gravity. That doesn't have anything to do
with your feet in water. Nice try though.
>
> In Article <3BD8CC93...@home.com> Jim wrote:
> > And what glare is happening at the equator to cover the
> > Auroras? Do the people who live along the equator know
> > about this glare? Does this mean they have to wear
> > sunglasses at night?
>
> Tell you what, I'll shin a spotlight in your eyes and ask you to tell me
> about a candle flickering in the corner. Maybe wearing sunglasses will
> help?
>
You didn't answer my question. Do the people at the equator know about this glare that
drowns out the Aurora? Can they read at night by this glare? Do you have any idea what you
are talking about? Silly Nancy...LOL
>
> In Article <3BD8CC93...@home.com> Jim wrote:
> > Clear Skies
> > Jim
>
> Well, that won't help if you have a closed mind.
>
> Clear Thinking,
> Nancy
Ahh.. so someone who doesn't believe your scientifically illiterate ramblings has a closed
mind? Do you find accusing people of having a closed mind will get them to accept your
silly drivel?
Clear Skies
Jim
JTRIV
You should have your Zeta friends read Andrew Yee's post of 10/29 at 11:09 regarding the Polar
spacecraft and Aurora. There are some excellent images of Aurora from space that might help
explain to you (and your dim alien friends) why there is no glare needed to drown out the
Aurora at the equator. The Aurora does not make it all the way to the equator. (where did you
come up with glare in equatorial regions? That is among the dumbest things you have said
yet!) Silly Nancy.
http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/istp/polar/
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20011025aurora.html
Clear Skies
Jim
Nancy Lieder
wrote:
> I'm not sure how Mercury's magnetic field was measured,
> but I suspect it was by Mariner 10. ... I had a quick search
> on the web but couldn't find anything about the directions
> of magnetic fields of the planets.
I found some reference in a book that Mariner 10 passed by Mercury
several times in 1974 and 1975. Also, the surface indicates volcanic
activity in the past, indicating a liquid core at one time. The
statement was made that Mercury's magnetic field is only 1% or so the
strength of Earth's. Nevertheless, they line up and point in the SAME
direction.
In Article <9t4httchv7pp6j0l6...@4ax.com> David Paterson
wrote:
> There's also no evidence for the sort of sudden physical
> crustal movements you describe, although there's plenty
> for magnetic pole wanderings and reversals.
Oh, heavens! Check out prior sci.astro postings
<3BC1C59A...@zetatalk.com>
Re: Pole Shifts vs Ice Ages (Revisited)
(http://www.zetatalk.com/usenet/use90237.htm)
<3B87C329...@zetatalk.com>
Re: Planet X: VIEWING, Restated
(http://www.zetatalk.com/usenet/use90143.htm)
<3B6EC4AB...@zetatalk.com>
Re: Pole Shifts - Should We Care?
(http://www.zetatalk.com/usenet/use90092.htm)
<3B2E94E5...@zetatalk.com>
Planet X: PRIOR Pole Shifts, 1 BACK
(http://www.zetatalk.com/usenet/use00890.htm)
<3AFC09C3...@zetatalk.com>
Re: Planet X: MAY Coordinates
(http://www.zetatalk.com/usenet/use00766.htm)
<3AFB3E78...@zetatalk.com>
Re: Planet X: MAY Coordinates
(http://www.zetatalk.com/usenet/use00758.htm)
Nancy Lieder
> The particles from solar flares reaching the earth are
> know to cause Aurora activity. This is proven on a
> regular basis as observed solar flares are
> followed by Aurora activity just as predicted.
I see we haven't progressed much beyond the time when:
1. mice were ASSUMED to generate from dirty rags as
they were OBSEVED to appear and increase in a
number in places where dirty rags were placed.
2. the Earth as ASSUMED to be flat because it LOOKED
that way. Anyone stating otherwise likely to be burned
at the stake.
3. the Sun was ASSUMED to be moving around the flat
earth because it LOOKED that way, and was
predictable (as in will rise tomorrow) and regular.
If magnetic activity makes light bend, then prove that in the lab! It
doesn't.
Thomas McDonald
> In Article <3BDB3F5E...@home.com> Jim wrote:
>
>>The particles from solar flares reaching the earth are
>>know to cause Aurora activity. This is proven on a
>>regular basis as observed solar flares are
>>followed by Aurora activity just as predicted.
>>
>
> I see we haven't progressed much beyond the time when:
> 1. mice were ASSUMED to generate from dirty rags as
> they were OBSEVED to appear and increase in a
> number in places where dirty rags were placed.
> 2. the Earth as ASSUMED to be flat because it LOOKED
> that way. Anyone stating otherwise likely to be burned
> at the stake.
> 3. the Sun was ASSUMED to be moving around the flat
> earth because it LOOKED that way, and was
> predictable (as in will rise tomorrow) and regular.
>
> If magnetic activity makes light bend, then prove that in the lab! It
> doesn't.
>
Nancy,
Who claimed that magnetic activity made light bend? The
magnetosphere of the Earth causes incoming charged particles
to follow the lines of magnetic force around the Earth, and
in the process light is given off that we see as the
auroras. No bending of light by magnetism.
I do agree with some other posters, however, that your
"explanations" are hilarious. Please keep us entertained
with further adventures of the Zetas, the best space
comedians since "Spaceballs," and perhaps the inspiration
for Rebo and Zutti.
Clear, dark skies,
(and a bit of enlightenment for Nancy)
Tom McDonald
P.S.: Nancy, you might want to be careful in using logical
fallacies such as the above "post hoc, ergo prompter hoc"
against other posters here. If you get into a shooting
match, dueling logical fallacies, you will quickly be
demolished by anyone with a freshman philosophy class in
his/her background.
TSM
JTRIV
topic do you? Silly Nancy. Try reading up on Aurora, if you have questions
about the big words, post here. Someone will help.
Clear Skies
Jim
John Jones
"Thomas McDonald" <ts...@wwt.net> wrote in message
news:3BDD9CD8...@wwt.net...
> Nancy Lieder wrote:
>
> I do agree with some other posters, however, that your
> "explanations" are hilarious. Please keep us entertained
> with further adventures of the Zetas, the best space
> comedians since "Spaceballs," and perhaps the inspiration
> for Rebo and Zutti.
Get her to explain sonic booms and supersonic travel! There won't be
a dry seat in the house!
John Jones
"Nancy Lieder" <zeta...@zetatalk.com> wrote in message
news:3BDD96FB...@zetatalk.com...
> In Article <3BDB3F5E...@home.com> Jim wrote:
> > The particles from solar flares reaching the earth are
> > know to cause Aurora activity. This is proven on a
> > regular basis as observed solar flares are
> > followed by Aurora activity just as predicted.
>
> I see we haven't progressed much beyond the time when:
> 1. mice were ASSUMED to generate from dirty rags as
> they were OBSEVED to appear and increase in a
> number in places where dirty rags were placed.
or people received 'scientific' enlightenment from imaginary alien
friends.
> 2. the Earth as ASSUMED to be flat because it LOOKED
> that way. Anyone stating otherwise likely to be burned
> at the stake.
or people received 'scientific' enlightenment from imaginary alien
friends.
> 3. the Sun was ASSUMED to be moving around the flat
> earth because it LOOKED that way, and was
> predictable (as in will rise tomorrow) and regular.
or people received 'scientific' enlightenment from imaginary alien
friends.
>
Greg Neill
news:AoxD7.22938$D05.2...@typhoon.midsouth.rr.com...
>
> "Nancy Lieder" <zeta...@zetatalk.com> wrote in message
> news:3BDD96FB...@zetatalk.com...
> > In Article <3BDB3F5E...@home.com> Jim wrote:
> > > The particles from solar flares reaching the earth are
> > > know to cause Aurora activity. This is proven on a
> > > regular basis as observed solar flares are
> > > followed by Aurora activity just as predicted.
> >
> > I see we haven't progressed much beyond the time when:
> > 1. mice were ASSUMED to generate from dirty rags as
> > they were OBSEVED to appear and increase in a
> > number in places where dirty rags were placed.
>
> or people received 'scientific' enlightenment from imaginary alien
> friends.
>
N*ncy can't even keep her old wife's tales straight.
It was thought that mice were generated spontaneously from
stored grain ('cause that's where they seemed to show up).
It was thought that maggots were generated spontaneously
from decaying meat.
It is *true* that oily rags can lead to spontaneous
combustion.
David Paterson (Pixi)
>In Article <9t4httchv7pp6j0l6...@4ax.com> David Paterson
>wrote:
>> I'm not sure how Mercury's magnetic field was measured,
>> but I suspect it was by Mariner 10. ... I had a quick search
>> on the web but couldn't find anything about the directions
>> of magnetic fields of the planets.
>
>I found some reference in a book that Mariner 10 passed by Mercury
>several times in 1974 and 1975. Also, the surface indicates volcanic
>activity in the past, indicating a liquid core at one time. The
>statement was made that Mercury's magnetic field is only 1% or so the
>strength of Earth's. Nevertheless, they line up and point in the SAME
>direction.
Can you post references to papers, articles or sites that give details
of the direction of the magnetic field of Mercury and other planets and
moons? I admit I've only had a cursory look at this, but couldn't find
anything on it. It would be interesting to see details of magnetic
field strengths and directions throughout the solar system.
It's also possible that Mercury's magnetic poles have reversed since the
measurement by Mariner 10 (NB - this is a supposition, I'm not claiming
it has) so you have no _current_ evidence that it's in the same
direction as the Earth's.
>In Article <9t4httchv7pp6j0l6...@4ax.com> David Paterson
>wrote:
>> There's also no evidence for the sort of sudden physical
>> crustal movements you describe, although there's plenty
>> for magnetic pole wanderings and reversals.
>
>Oh, heavens! Check out prior sci.astro postings
I have, and I still don't see any proof of rapid, sudden crust movement.
There have been movements of the magnetic poles, sometimes apparently
very rapid (in geological terms) and there is continual plate movement,
but nothing as drastic as you describe.
Please also post references to papers supporting this claim (not usenet
postings or pseudo-scientifc, badly researched articles).
David P.
--
David_Paterson = david.p...@btinternet.com Ś david.p...@vissci.com;
Senior R & D programmer There are three kinds of people in the world -
Visual Sciences Ltd. those who can count, and those who can't...
Nancy Lieder
wrote:
> Nancy Lieder wrote:
>> David Paterson wrote:
>
>>> I'm not sure how Mercury's magnetic field was measured,
>>> but I suspect it was by Mariner 10. ...
>
>> by Mercury several times in 1974 and 1975. Also, the
>> surface indicates volcanic activity in the past, indicating
>> a liquid core at one time. The statement was made that
>> Mercury's magnetic field is only 1% or so the strength
>> of Earth's. Nevertheless, they line up and point in the
>> SAME direction.
>
> Can you post references to papers, articles or sites that give
> details of the direction of the magnetic field of Mercury
> and other planets and moons?
What I found during a brief web search was that Mariner 10 indeed
measured Mercury's field in 1975, and that Surveyor was to determine the
orientation of Mar's in 1996. The only result if Mercury's orientation
is in my Astronomy 101 book, stating that it points in the same
direction as Earth's. I could find no statement on which direction
Mar's points to, but the image on the page mentioned below IMPLIES this
same direction too - Mar's viewed from the side, with a graphic of the
magnetic field alongside this photo.
Mariner 10
Courtesy of NASA's National Space Science Data Center
http://www.solarviews.com/eng/marin10.htm
Mariner 10 ... Instruments on board the spacecraft were
designed to measure the atmospheric, surface, and
physical characteristics of Mercury and Venus.
Experiments included television photography,
MAGNETIC FIELD, plasma, infrared radiometry,
ultraviolet spectroscopy, and radio science detectors. ...
Mariner 10 reached Mercury on March 29, 1974,
passing over the planet at 705 kilometers (438 miles)
above the surface. A second encounter with Mercury
occurred on September 21, 1974, at an altitude of
about 47,000 kilometers (29,200 miles). The sunlit
side of the planet and the south polar region were
photographed. A third and last Mercury encounter,
at an altitude of 327 kilometers (203 miles), occurred
on March 16, 1975. About 300 additional photographs
were obtained along with MAGNETIC FIELD
MEASUREMENTS.
Mars Global Surveyor
Courtesy of NASA's National Space Science Data Center
http://www.solarviews.com/eng/survey96.htm
The Mars Global Surveyor is designed to orbit Mars
over a two year period and collect data on the surface
morphology, topography, composition, gravity,
atmospheric dynamics, and MAGNETIC FIELD ...
All instruments except the magnetometer are stored
on the nadir equipment deck ... A magnetometer/electron
reflectometer sensor is attached to the end of each
solar array ... A magnetometer will be used to
determine whether Mars has a magnetic field, and the
strength and orientation of the field if one exists
Nancy Lieder
> Nancy Lieder wrote:
>> In Article <3BDB3F5E...@home.com> Jim wrote:
>
>>> The particles from solar flares reaching the earth are
>>> know to cause Aurora activity. This is proven on a
>>> regular basis as observed solar flares are
>>> followed by Aurora activity just as predicted.
>
>> the lab! It doesn't.
>
> The magnetosphere of the Earth causes incoming charged
> particles to follow the lines of magnetic force around the
> Earth, and in the process light is given off that we see
> as the auroras.
What have we got here that is NOT theory, please. Does electricity bend
light? In the lab? Does a magnetic field bend light? In the lab? So
far, in this and the discussion on the Pole Shifts in the Sun thread, we
have ONLY the measurement from the Sun of x-rays coming in bursts from
different places in the Sun, switching about as a result of solar
cycles. Do magnetic fields bend x-rays? In the lab? So we have
ASSUMPTIONS, and THEORIES, and alongside this we have the planets in the
solar system that have magnetic fields (Mercury, Earth, Mars) all
pointing in the same direction! THIS has been measured and documented by
Mariner 10 in 1975 and the Mars Surveyor in 1996. They don’t switch
around when the Sun has cycles, any more than the Earth does.
Plonk!
There goes the reversal of the Sun’s magnetic field theory.
Nancy Lieder
> details of the direction of the magnetic field of Mercury
> and other planets and moons?
Surveyor reports indicate that the surface of Mars indicates magnetic
fields pointing in different direction, as with the Earth, past pole
shifts on Mars. Something the Zetas stated does and has ocurred during
passage of Planet X.
[Planet X], barreling though the Solar System, affects
more than just the Earth, as might be imagined. How
could it not affect the other planets, particularly those
close to the Sun. Where the Earth experiences a pole
shift each time, being composed of materials that
magnetically align with the giant comet, other planets
have wholly different reactions. Venus, for instance,
is relatively unaffected, outside of a slight change in
orbit toward the path of the comet. Mars also has a
pole shift, but this is slight as this planet has cooled
and has less fluidity in its core than the Earth. The
planets in the outer orbits, depending on their weight,
pull slightly inward during the comet's passage, but
find their normal route later, the influence of other
factors determining their normal orbit weighing in
again. And how does the Sun itself react?
Imperturbable, not even a flare, as its activity is
influenced from within, not without.
ZetaTalk, Other Planets
Magnetic Stripes Preserve Record of Ancient Mars
http://www.solarviews.com/eng/marsmag.htm
Scientists using the spacecraft's MAGNETOMETER have
discovered banded patterns of MAGNETIC FIELDS on the
Martian surface. The adjacent magnetic bands point
in opposite directions, giving these invisible stripes
a striking similarity to patterns seen in the crust of
Earth's sea floors. On the Earth, the sea floor spreads
apart slowly at mid-oceanic ridges as new crust flows
up from Earth's hot interior. Meanwhile, the direction
of Earth's magnetic field reverses occasionally,
resulting in alternating stripes in the new crust that
carry a fossil record of the past hundreds of million
years of Earth's magnetic history
JTRIV
bending light with your silly Aurora theory. (still haven't answered my
question, do people in equatorial regions know about this glare that drowns
out the Aurora???) ;-)
This must be so confusing for you. So confusing that in your last post you
said that the only reference to Mercury's polarity was in an Astronomy 101
book, and you couldn't find any statement on the direction of Mars's
polarity. Yet in this post (1 minute later) you claim that these are
documented facts.
Here's a couple of links.
Mercury's polarity is the same as the Earth's.
http://www.astronomytoday.com/astronomy/mercury.html
However Mars does not actually have magnetic field, just localized magnetic
area's.
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2000/12/15_mars.html
We don't know if Mercury's magnetic field flips, although the Earth's does
on occasion. I believe I read the last reversal was 300,000 years ago. The
Sun however reverses polarity every 22 years, without a poleshift on Earth.
I find it truly amazing that you admit in your post that the Earth doesn't
switch with Sun cycles, so I guess you realize that this phantom planet
would not cause a poleshift with it's magnetism. Silly Nancy.
Possibly if you posted to alt.discussion.halfwit you might find someone who
believes this nonsense. Meanwhile the comedy of your posts is appreciated.
Clear Skies
Jim
David Paterson (Pixi)
>This must be so confusing for you. So confusing that in your last post you
>said that the only reference to Mercury's polarity was in an Astronomy 101
>book, and you couldn't find any statement on the direction of Mars's
>polarity. Yet in this post (1 minute later) you claim that these are
>documented facts.
>
>Here's a couple of links.
>Mercury's polarity is the same as the Earth's.
>http://www.astronomytoday.com/astronomy/mercury.html
>
>However Mars does not actually have magnetic field, just localized magnetic
>area's.
>http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2000/12/15_mars.html
>
>We don't know if Mercury's magnetic field flips, although the Earth's does
>on occasion. I believe I read the last reversal was 300,000 years ago. The
>Sun however reverses polarity every 22 years, without a poleshift on Earth.
>I find it truly amazing that you admit in your post that the Earth doesn't
>switch with Sun cycles, so I guess you realize that this phantom planet
>would not cause a poleshift with it's magnetism. Silly Nancy.
Having some spare time over lunch yesterday I decided to do a bit more
digging into planetary magnetic fields. Here's what I was able to find
in a few minutes.
Mercury -
Dipole field strength: 0.0033 gauss-Rh3
Dipole tilt to rotational axis: 169 degrees
Venus - no magnetic field detected to date
Earth -
Dipole field strength: 0.3076 gauss-Re3
Latitude/Longitude of dipole N: 78.6 degrees N/70.1 degrees W
Moon - some magnetic patches indicative of a possible early magnetic
field.
Mars - as Craig pointed out, there's no planetary magnetic field, only
stripes and patches. As with the moon, this suggests an early magnetic
field which is now defunct.
Jupiter -
Dipole field strength: 4.28 gauss-Rj3
Dipole tilt to rotational axis: 9.6 degrees
(Jupiter's field is in the _opposite_ direction to Earth's)
Io - magnetic field detected, but no further information found
Ganymede - "fluctuating" magnetic field found, again, a bit sparse on
further information.
Saturn -
Dipole field strength: 0.210 gauss-Rs3
Dipole tilt to rotational axis: < 1 degree
(I'm not an expert, but this might mean that Saturn's field is also
oriented in the _opposite_ direction to Earth's)
Uranus -
Dipole field strength: 0.228 gauss-Ru3
Dipole tilt to rotational axis: 58.6 degrees
(since Uranus' rotational axis is almost perpendicular to its
orbital plane, this makes its field very unusual, and obviously
pointing nowhere in the same direction as Earth's)
Neptune -
Dipole field strength: 0.142 gauss-Rn3
Dipole tilt to rotational axis: 46.9 degrees
(and this is also way off axis, so nothing like Earth's)
So, overall we have 1 (one) planet (Mercury) with its magnetic field
oriented in the same direction as Earth, 2 (two) pointing the other way
(Jupiter and Saturn - not sure about the latter though) and 2 (two) not
aligned in any way with the Earth. Plus some odds and ends.
Just about what you'd expect if field strengths and directions had no
connections between each other. (Although Io and Ganymede might be
strongly influenced by Jupiter's field, and it would be interesting to
see more data on them.)
Looks like the theory that all the planets' fields are aligned by the
sun doesn't hold water (or Mercury :-).
David P.
--
David_Paterson = david.p...@btinternet.com ¦ david.p...@vissci.com;
Nancy Lieder
magnetic fields are pointing in. This is not very clear, as the
magnetic field is usually given as a degree from the rotational axis,
but in what direction? I dug about more thoroughly in my book, The Solar
System, a Practical Guide, which states that Jupiter and Saturn have
their north poles pointing south, as David noted, the only two such
planets to have this orientation, and that Neptune has its south pole
pointing toward Voyager (sideways) as it approached from Earth. Where I
could not put my hands on the quote, I recall reading that Pluto had the
same orientation are Earth and Mercury. Also, if magnetic north on Earth
is someplace in Canada, then magnetic north is pointing in different
directions into the sky during a day’s rotation, so which direction is
it pointing in? I assumed the orientation during Canada’s day, pointing
in alignment with Mercury’s field. So looking at the ecliptic from the
side, all planets lined up to the left of the Sun, and if I assumed
right about the Magnetic Tilt direction (up or down) from the Axial Tilt
direction, we would have the magnetic pole tilts as follows:
PLANET at AXIAL and MAGTILT = SUM where POLES DIR with STRENGTH
Mercury at 0° and 11° = 11° where N is Up with .0033
Venus at -2° but NA
Earth at 23° and -11° = 12° where N is Up with .3076
Mars at 24° but NA
Jupiter at 3° and 10° = 13° where N is Down with 4.28
Saturn at 29° and 1° = 30° where N is Down with .210
Uranus at 98° and +59° = -34° where N is Down with .228
Neptune at 29° and +47° = 77° where N is Left with .142
Pluto at 118° and ? = ? where N is Up with ?
So it would seem that the outer planets are trying to return to the
solar system (Sun) N is N orientation, which Jupiter and Saturn are
acting in opposition! Why, is the question, which the Zetas will
address in the next post.
In Article <v4l8uto595rgtmrgj...@4ax.com> David Paterson
wrote:
> Mercury -
> Dipole field strength: 0.0033 gauss-Rh3
> Dipole tilt to rotational axis: 169 degrees
> Venus - no magnetic field detected to date
> Earth -
> Dipole field strength: 0.3076 gauss-Re3
> Latitude/Longitude of dipole N: 78.6 degrees
> N/70.1 degrees W
> Moon - some magnetic patches indicative of a possible
> early magnetic field.
> Mars - as Craig pointed out, there's no planetary
> magnetic field, only stripes and patches. As with
> the moon, this suggests an early magnetic field
> which is now defunct.
> Jupiter -
> Dipole field strength: 4.28 gauss-Rj3
> Dipole tilt to rotational axis: 9.6 degrees
> (Jupiter's field is in the _opposite_ direction
> to Earth's)
>Ganymede - "fluctuating" magnetic field found,
> again, a bit sparse on further information.
> Saturn -
> Dipole field strength: 0.210 gauss-Rs3
> Dipole tilt to rotational axis: < 1 degree
> (I'm not an expert, but this might mean that
> Saturn's field is also oriented in the _opposite_
> direction to Earth's)
> Uranus -
> Dipole field strength: 0.228 gauss-Ru3
> Dipole tilt to rotational axis: 58.6 degrees
> (since Uranus' rotational axis is almost
> perpendicular to its orbital plane, this makes
> its field very unusual, and obviously
> pointing nowhere in the same direction as
> Earth's)
> Neptune -
> Dipole field strength: 0.142 gauss-Rn3
> Dipole tilt to rotational axis: 46.9 degrees
> (and this is also way off axis, so nothing like
> Earth's)
Nancy Lieder
The Zetas explain:
Children playing with magnets soon discover that
magnets brought in close proximity to each other
want to snap together, north pole to south pole, and
can be positioned north pole to north pole only
under force. Lined up side by side, as long as a
certain distance is maintained and friction against
a table top or other surface is present, they can
coexist with without polar symmetry, however.
Why the pressure to snap together and align when
poles approach, where not so in a side by side
arrangement? An analysis of magnetic particle
flow in magnets placed end to end show the
particles flow moving through the entire length
of the linkup of magnets, creating a longer and
larger field before the particles return to the shared
south pole at the end of the lineup. But what of
the particle flow when magnets are positions side
by side? The key here is the strength of the fields,
and the closeness of the magnets.
- If the magnets are of a strength and closeness to
each other such that a returning particle finds
itself fighting the flow to do anything but go to
the far edge of the overall mega-magnetic field
created by the group, the magnets will line up
with their poles in the SAME DIRECTION.
- If any of the magnets are of a significant
strength, but the magnets are not so close that
returning particles are perforce forced to the
outside of the overall mega-magnetic field
created by the group, the returning particles will
take the path of LEAST RESISTANCE and
return via a magnet in opposition. In fact, this
magnet will be in opposition in the grouping
not because of its original orientation but
because the returning flow CREATES a south
pole handy to the flow, establishing the
magnetic orientation. This happens, not
surprisingly, in gaseous planets as they have
the greatest mobility in their composition and
the least resistance to change.
- If the magnet in a side by side arrangement
are at the greatest distance from the dominant
magnet in the group, they will align in
orientation with that magnet as the overall flow
of particles is such at the PERIMETER of the
mega-magnetic field such that the return
south is sweeping like eddy currents at the
very outside of all the magnets in the group.
There peripheral magnets thus align in the
SAME DIRECTION as the dominant magnet.
When this path of least resistance is established in a
gaseous planet, the magnetic particle flow takes a
short cut to the south pole of the Sun, the dominant
magnetic influence in the area. Those particles
flowing through such a gaseous magnet do NOT
return to the south pole of the planet they have just
passed through, but move along to the south pole
of the Sun. Magnetic fields are measured by man
not by the flow of particles, but by the DIRECTION
of the flow, as the orientation is determined by
which way a magnet swings under the influence of
this flow. Thus, probes sent to measure the
magnetic field of a gaseous planet find their test
magnets swinging into alignment, both the south
pole of the gaseous planet and the test magnet
lined up to act as a conduit for the intense flow of
magnetic particles on the move. The fact that
there is no actual FIELD about the gaseous planet,
no return from the north pole of the gaseous
magnet to its south pole, is not noted.
ZetaTalk
Nancy Lieder
> Dipole field strength: 4.28 gauss-Rj3
> Dipole tilt to rotational axis: 9.6 degrees
> (Jupiter's field is in the _opposite_ direction to Earth's)
And the Zetas explained:
> If ... the magnets are not so close that
> returning particles are ... forced to the
> outside of the overall mega-magnetic field
> created by the group, the returning particles will
> ... return ... in opposition. In fact, this
> magnet will be in opposition in the grouping
> not because of its original orientation but
> because the returning flow CREATES a south
> pole handy to the flow, establishing the
> magnetic orientation. This happens, not
> surprisingly, in gaseous planets as they have
> the greatest mobility in their composition and
> the least resistance to change.
Which explains futhre why Planet X, as it approachs the solar system
from 11( below the ecliptic, dives to 32( below. The Zetas have stated
implied this is due at least in part to gravity particle flow, but
looking at this from the magnetic point of view, is would also account
for a dive below the ecliptic. Planet X is trying to keep its north
pole aligned with the Sun, but when passing the magnetic flow that
Jupiter and Saturn provide, it would be like putting north pole to north
pole. No wonder it takes a dive.
[Planet X] is both attracted and repulsed by your Sun....
Thus, when it gets to its maximum speed, entering
your Solar System, it bends in toward your Sun, after
having veered outward slightly, so that the angle is
approximately 32 degrees ... [Planet X] pulls down
and away from your Sun only at the last minute. This
is reflected in time as the last 9.7 weeks or 68 days.
This is reflected in distance as 1.2598 times the
orbital diameter of Pluto, or two and one-half times
the distance from your Sun to this farthest known
planet which you call Pluto. ... It should be
understood that the reason for the deviation in the
first place is that the other planets in the Earth's
orbital plane are also entering into the equation.
[Planet X] in essence pulls away from this orbital
plane, as well as from the Sun. It does not want to
move in along side the other planets, it wants to
cross quickly at a sharper angle.
ZetaTalk, Entry Angle
(http://www.zetatalk.com/science/s31.htm)
Nancy Lieder
> Astronomy 101 book, and you couldn't find any
> statement on the direction of Mars's polarity. Yet
> in this post (1 minute later) you claim that
> these are documented facts.
>
> Jim
This must be so confusing to you, Jim. The book I referred to as my
Astronomy 101 book is titled The Solar System, a Practical Guide,
written in 1991. The measurement of Mars field occurred during
Surveyor, in 1996 on. I realize someone blinded by the need to insult,
always, can't see through the fog. Try to address just the facts,
instead of groping about for some rationale for your next insult.
Clear Thinking,
Nancy
John_Jones
"Nancy Lieder" <na...@zetatalk.com> wrote in message
news:3BE6CEB2...@zetatalk.com...
> In Article <3BE23768...@home.com> Jim wrote:
> > This must be so confusing for you. So confusing that
> > in your last post you in your last post you said that the
> > only reference to Mercury's polarity was in an
> > Astronomy 101 book, and you couldn't find any
> > statement on the direction of Mars's polarity. Yet
> > in this post (1 minute later) you claim that
> > these are documented facts.
> >
> > Clear Skies,
> > Jim
>
> This must be so confusing to you, Jim. The book I referred to as my
> Astronomy 101 book is titled The Solar System, a Practical Guide,
> written in 1991.
This must be confusing for you Nancy. The date the book was published
is not relevant as much as is the date when Mecury's magnetic field
was measured. Just in case I've got your attention, please explain
supersonic flight again.
>? The measurement of Mars field occurred during
> Surveyor, in 1996 on.
What about Mercury's field? When was that measured? And what was
that your imaginary zeta friends said about sonic booms?
> I realize someone blinded by the need to insult,
> always, can't see through the fog. Try to address just the facts,
You first.
JTRIV
the next. Of course you have never let the facts get in the way of a good
story.
If you will also note, I provided links to the information you were
clueless about.
And I'm not trying to be insulting, just have fun with someone who
constantly posts fiction to a science group. I wouldn't bother to reply at
all, except I'd hate for some newbie to read your posts and think you were
posting facts instead of fiction. They don't have to take my word for it, a
link or brief search on the net will quickly show how silly your posts are.
Clear Skies
Jim
JTRIV
look to your own tt-social group. Several people are discussing
this as tonight's Aurora was anticipated due to the solar flare
on Nov. 4th. Of course I hope not many of them are watching the
"sci.astro debates". It will probably seem strange that this
advanced alien race do not understand Aurora. Silly Nancy.
Did you see the Aurora tonight? Unfortunately I'm too far south
so I missed it. I'm nowhere near the equator, but I looked for
the "glare" that drowns out the Aurora. I didn't see that either.
Clear Skies
Jim