Another co-incidence? The Earth's magnetic shield.

yeah, it's a diagram, you pompous photocopiest;
was he saying that the "elements" are atoms with a dipolar moment?

seriously, para- and dia-magnetic are so important;
can you explain it -- not googloplex it?

thus:
one has only to look at the hodographs
of DCMiller's update to M&M -- and
to comprehend the labels of the graphs --
to forever be dysabused of the say-so
about "the God-am null results."

this is the first time I have seen the hodographs
in the actual article;
my first exposure was a secondary expository article,
many years ago.

Website maintained by friends of Maurice Allais
http://allais.maurice.free.fr/English/index.htm

Dear Brad Guth:

On Sep 8, 6:14*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
On Sep 8, wrote:
....
How is that not following the magnetic field lines?

There's no such thing as "magnetic field lines"

There is no such thing as "gravitational field lines", yet we all
understand "down" and "up".

In similar context, magnetic field lines would be normals to
equipotential surfaces. In other words the direction a charge would
move.

David A. Smith

On Sep 8, 8:35*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 9/8/11 8:14 PM, Brad Guth wrote:

On Sep 8, 4:57 pm, *wrote:
Dear 1treePetrifiedForestLane:

On Sep 8, 11:31 am,
wrote:

I *was* considering that, but not at this time;
don't the charged things spiral around the lines,
per the right-hand rule, or what ever?

How is that not following the magnetic field lines?

David A. Smith

There's no such thing as "magnetic field lines"

* *A very useful concept in physics, Brad, as is the concept of
* *an electron, neutrino or photon. You should do some self-education
* *about the value of magnetic field lines.
* * *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magneti...ic_field_lines
* * *http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wfldline.html

That's simple; because I believe there are no such "magnetic field
lines".

A modulated magnetic force can artificially create or simulate a
magnetic field line.

A multi-layered complex magnet can create or simulate magnetic field
lines.

Paramagnetic and diamagnetic elements can from or align as magnetic
field lines.

Show us or demonstrate a natural magnet that produces "magnetic field
lines".

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On Sep 9, 9:14*am, Brad Guth wrote:


There's no such thing as "magnetic field lines"



OK, but there is no such thing as numbers either.

On Sep 8, 10:03*pm, dlzc wrote:
Dear Brad Guth:

On Sep 8, 6:14*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

On Sep 8, wrote:
...
How is that not following the magnetic field lines?

There's no such thing as "magnetic field lines"

There is no such thing as "gravitational field lines", yet we all
understand "down" and "up".

In similar context, magnetic field lines would be normals to
equipotential surfaces. *In other words the direction a charge would
move.

David A. Smith

Yes, but that's not a line formed by the magnet. It's a line formed
by paramagnetic and diamagnetic elements reacting to the magnetic
force.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

"columbiaaccidentinvestigation"
wrote in message
...
On Sep 8, 5:22 am, "Giga2" "Giga2" just(removetheseandaddmatthe
wrote:
"Frisbieinstein" wrote in message

...
On Sep 7, 6:50 pm, "Giga2" "Giga2" just(removetheseandaddmatthe





wrote:
"At present, the overall geomagnetic field is becoming weaker; the
present
strong deterioration corresponds to a 10-15% decline over the last 150
years
and has accelerated in the past several years; geomagnetic intensity has
declined almost continuously from a maximum 35% above the modern value
achieved approximately 2,000 years ago."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagn...e_of_the_geoma...

Could there be any connection, as well as correlation, between the
reduced
magnetic field and increased co2 or warming? Or could all be caused by
some
other factor, perhaps galactic in origin?

--

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts" Richard Feynman

"What's it gotta do with cloud feedbacks?" Giga2

I've looked into it. The system is chaotic, so even in theory there
is no predicting it. No one knows any details about how it works.

The magnetic field of the Sun reverses every eleven years. In the
Earth the iron core resists this, so the reversal has no period. The
average is about 50,000 years, but it can be up to a million years.
By they way, a recent computer simulation showed that the polarity of
the core is opposite that outside of the core.

Finally, the magnetic field of the earth is about double of its
average over the lifetime of the Earth, so it is much stronger than
usual.

=Interesting, didn't know that about the sun either.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There has been some great info coming in lately about the movement of
solar magnetic fields, and yet no connection has been made with GCR
seeding clouds at the poles, or at the SAA.

=Abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence.

On Sep 9, 9:59*am, "Giga2" "Giga2" just(removetheseandaddmatthe
wrote:
"columbiaaccidentinvestigation"
wrote in ...
On Sep 8, 5:22 am, "Giga2" "Giga2" just(removetheseandaddmatthe





wrote:
"Frisbieinstein" wrote in message

...
On Sep 7, 6:50 pm, "Giga2" "Giga2" just(removetheseandaddmatthe

wrote:
"At present, the overall geomagnetic field is becoming weaker; the
present
strong deterioration corresponds to a 10-15% decline over the last 150
years
and has accelerated in the past several years; geomagnetic intensity has
declined almost continuously from a maximum 35% above the modern value
achieved approximately 2,000 years ago."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagn...e_of_the_geoma....

Could there be any connection, as well as correlation, between the
reduced
magnetic field and increased co2 or warming? Or could all be caused by
some
other factor, perhaps galactic in origin?

--

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts" Richard Feynman

"What's it gotta do with cloud feedbacks?" Giga2

I've looked into it. The system is chaotic, so even in theory there
is no predicting it. No one knows any details about how it works.

The magnetic field of the Sun reverses every eleven years. In the
Earth the iron core resists this, so the reversal has no period. The
average is about 50,000 years, but it can be up to a million years.
By they way, a recent computer simulation showed that the polarity of
the core is opposite that outside of the core.

Finally, the magnetic field of the earth is about double of its
average over the lifetime of the Earth, so it is much stronger than
usual.

=Interesting, didn't know that about the sun either.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There has been some great info coming in lately about the movement of
solar magnetic fields, and yet no connection has been made with GCR
seeding clouds at the poles, or at the SAA.

=Abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You'd actually believe *anything* that would hold any hope that CO2
was not the main driver of GW. Wouldn't you?

"We don't know what it is, but it can't be CO2"
"We don't know what it is, but it can't be CO2"
"We don't know what it is, but it can't be CO2"
"We don't know what it is, but it can't be CO2"
"We don't know what it is, but it can't be CO2"
"We don't know what it is, but it can't be CO2"

$10,000 says you are talking out of your arse, you utter hypocrite.

"Giga2" "Giga2" just(removetheseandaddmatthe wrote in
message ...
"At present, the overall geomagnetic field is becoming weaker; the present
strong deterioration corresponds to a 10-15% decline over the last 150
years and has accelerated in the past several years; geomagnetic intensity
has declined almost continuously from a maximum 35% above the modern value
achieved approximately 2,000 years ago."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagn...gnetic_fie ld


Very plausible indeed. There is a possible mechanism (radiation). The
semi-chaotic but periodic behaviour of our magnetic field (deriving from our
molten core) is not disimilar to climate. Also easily checked; they have at
least a graph you could use for comparison.

On Sep 9, 10:50*am, "Peter Webb"
wrote:
"Giga2" "Giga2" just(removetheseandaddmatthe wrote in
...

"At present, the overall geomagnetic field is becoming weaker; the present
strong deterioration corresponds to a 10-15% decline over the last 150
years and has accelerated in the past several years; geomagnetic intensity
has declined almost continuously from a maximum 35% above the modern value
achieved approximately 2,000 years ago."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagn...e_of_the_geoma...

Very plausible indeed. There is a possible mechanism (radiation). The
semi-chaotic but periodic behaviour of our magnetic field (deriving from our
molten core) is not disimilar to climate. Also easily checked; they have at
least a graph you could use for comparison.

"Very plausible" Says who? A climate denier. It would actually be so
low on the "causes of the recent global warming plausilbility scale"
that it would be invisible. If it would be somehow higher, show us a
whole bunch of scientific data and papers that support you. I can show
you an avalanche of papers that indicate CO2 is most likely to be the
cause of the current warming webby. If this possible cause was "very
plausible", then there would be a large body of scientific research to
support it. There isn't. What conculsion do you draw from that* Now
don't try to dodge and give me evidence that geomagnetic reversals
happen, will you, as that does not fall under "the causes of the
recent global warming". *))

*The conclusion that your average scientist draws is "extremely
unlikely; at the edge of possibility". The conclusion that a deluded
climate denier like webby draws is "very plausible". Sums these people
up really.

Dear Brad Guth:

On Sep 8, 10:58*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
On Sep 8, wrote:
On Sep 8, 6:14*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
On Sep 8, wrote:
...
How is that not following the magnetic field lines?

There's no such thing as "magnetic field lines"

There is no such thing as "gravitational field lines", yet we all
understand "down" and "up".

In similar context, magnetic field lines would be normals to
equipotential surfaces. *In other words the direction a charge
would move.

Yes, but that's not a line formed by the magnet. *It's a line
formed by paramagnetic and diamagnetic elements reacting
to the magnetic force.

No, it is a line a charge would move. You waste energy describing
what might cause the field lines, and incorrectly limiting what can
respond to whatever it is.

David A. Smith