It is not if, but when will North become South and the Geese will fly the wrong way

Swan wrote:
What causes the periodic reversals of the earth's magnetic field? Have there been any successful attempts to model the phenomenon?
October 21, 1999
Gary A. Glatzmaier of the Institute of Geophysics & Planetary Physics at Los Alamos National Laboratory has done extensive work in this area. He replies:
"The Earth's magnetic field is thought to be generated by fluid motions in the liquid, outer part of the Earth's core, which is mainly composed of iron. The fluid motions are driven by buoyancy forces that develop at the base of the outer core as the Earth slowly cools and iron condenses onto the solid, inner solid core below. The rotation of the Earth causes the buoyant fluid to rise in curved trajectories, which generate new magnetic field by twisting and shearing the existing magnetic field. Over 99 percent of the Earth's magnetic energy remains confined entirely within the core. We only observe the small portion of the magnetic field that extends to the surface and beyond, where its basic structure is a dipole--that is, a simple north-south field like that of a simple bar magnet. There are also smaller, non-dipolar structures in the Earth's field; these change locally and very slightly on a century timescale.

"The dipole part of the field is usually aligned fairly closely with the Earth's rotation axis; in other words, the magnetic poles are usually fairly close to the geographic poles, which is why a compass works. Occasionally, however, the dipole part of the field reverses, causing the locations of the north and south magnetic poles to switch. This reversal process can be seen in the paleomagnetic record, locked into rocks of the ocean floor and in some lava flows. The reversal process is not literally 'periodic' as it is on the sun, whose magnetic field reverses every 11 years. The time between magnetic reversals on the Earth is sometimes as short as 10,000 years and sometimes as long as 25 million years; the time it takes to reverse is only about 5,000 years.

"The first dynamically-consistent, three-dimensional computer simulation of the geodynamo (the mechanism in the Earth's fluid outer core that generates and maintains the geomagnetic field) was accomplished and published by Paul H. Roberts of the University of California at Los Angeles and myself in 1995. We programmed supercomputers to solve the large set of nonlinear equations that describe the physics of the fluid motions and magnetic field generation in the Earth's core. The simulated geomagnetic field, which now spans the equivalent of over 300,000 years, has an intensity, a dipole-dominated structure and a westward drift at the surface that are all similar to the Earth's real field. Our model predicted that the solid inner core, being magnetically coupled to the eastward fluid flow above it, should rotate slightly faster than the surface of the Earth. This prediction was recently supported by studies of seismic waves passing through the core.

"In addition, the computer model has produced three spontaneous reversals of the geomagnetic field during the 300,000-year simulation. So now, for the first time, we have three-dimensional, time-dependent simulated information about how magnetic reversals can occur. The process is not simple, even in our computer model. Fluid motions try to reverse the field on a few thousand-year timescale, but the solid, inner core tries to prevent reversals because the field cannot change (diffuse) within the inner core nearly as quickly as in the fluid, outer core. Only on rare occasions do the thermodynamics, the fluid motions and the magnetic field all evolve in a compatible manner that allows for the original field to diffuse completely out of the inner core so the new dipole polarity can diffuse in and establish a reversed magnetic field. The stochastic (random) nature of the process probably explains why the time between reversals on the Earth varies so much."

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:
What causes the periodic reversals of the earth's magnetic field? Have there been any successful attempts to model the phenomenon?
October 21, 1999
Gary A. Glatzmaier of the Institute of Geophysics & Planetary Physics at Los Alamos National Laboratory has done extensive work in this area. He replies:
"The Earth's magnetic field is thought to be generated by fluid motions in the liquid, outer part of the Earth's core, which is mainly composed of iron. The fluid motions are driven by buoyancy forces that develop at the base of the outer core as the Earth slowly cools and iron condenses onto the solid, inner solid core below. The rotation of the Earth causes the buoyant fluid to rise in curved trajectories, which generate new magnetic field by twisting and shearing the existing magnetic field. Over 99 percent of the Earth's magnetic energy remains confined entirely within the core. We only observe the small portion of the magnetic field that extends to the surface and beyond, where its basic structure is a dipole--that is, a simple north-south field like that of a simple bar magnet. There are also smaller, non-dipolar structures in the Earth's field; these change locally and very slightly on a century timescale.

"The dipole part of the field is usually aligned fairly closely with the Earth's rotation axis; in other words, the magnetic poles are usually fairly close to the geographic poles, which is why a compass works. Occasionally, however, the dipole part of the field reverses, causing the locations of the north and south magnetic poles to switch. This reversal process can be seen in the paleomagnetic record, locked into rocks of the ocean floor and in some lava flows. The reversal process is not literally 'periodic' as it is on the sun, whose magnetic field reverses every 11 years. The time between magnetic reversals on the Earth is sometimes as short as 10,000 years and sometimes as long as 25 million years; the time it takes to reverse is only about 5,000 years.

"The first dynamically-consistent, three-dimensional computer simulation of the geodynamo (the mechanism in the Earth's fluid outer core that generates and maintains the geomagnetic field) was accomplished and published by Paul H. Roberts of the University of California at Los Angeles and myself in 1995. We programmed supercomputers to solve the large set of nonlinear equations that describe the physics of the fluid motions and magnetic field generation in the Earth's core. The simulated geomagnetic field, which now spans the equivalent of over 300,000 years, has an intensity, a dipole-dominated structure and a westward drift at the surface that are all similar to the Earth's real field. Our model predicted that the solid inner core, being magnetically coupled to the eastward fluid flow above it, should rotate slightly faster than the surface of the Earth. This prediction was recently supported by studies of seismic waves passing through the core.

"In addition, the computer model has produced three spontaneous reversals of the geomagnetic field during the 300,000-year simulation. So now, for the first time, we have three-dimensional, time-dependent simulated information about how magnetic reversals can occur. The process is not simple, even in our computer model. Fluid motions try to reverse the field on a few thousand-year timescale, but the solid, inner core tries to prevent reversals because the field cannot change (diffuse) within the inner core nearly as quickly as in the fluid, outer core. Only on rare occasions do the thermodynamics, the fluid motions and the magnetic field all evolve in a compatible manner that allows for the original field to diffuse completely out of the inner core so the new dipole polarity can diffuse in and establish a reversed magnetic field. The stochastic (random) nature of the process probably explains why the time between reversals on the Earth varies so much."

OMG none of that shit answers my question from my existential crisis thread!

Here's what it sounds to me, the evidence you have...

***
We (scientists) have found random rock samples.

We suspect the rocks were molten, and became solid, and this leaves evidence of the magnetic orientation of the planet that exists in the way the crystalline formation orients in the rocks.

Some rocks were oriented south, and some north.
***

That's it.

Now you have made some giant leap of faith, that the planet has been undergoing magnetic flips, at some kind of interval, and will continue to do so.

You assume there is no order to the magnetism of the Earth.

I look at this evidence, and I think when the earth was being formed, the magnetic field may have flipped.

But the Earth has already been formed, so why would it keep flipping???

I also think if the magnetic field flipped, then the Earth would start spinning west. I wouldn't bet on that happening.

Swan wrote:

I do not have any evidence as I am not a geologist, so you are very confused, but everyone already knows that.

CIAO

PS. Tell us more about the 6000 year old Earth.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

I do not have any evidence as I am not a geologist, so you are very confused, but everyone already knows that.

CIAO

PS. Tell us more about the 6000 year old Earth.

Looks like you are confused, if you think there is enough evidence in the public domain to conclude the interval of Earth's polarity flips in the past, and that another polarity flip is imminent.

Ok meme boy, since you asked for it...

I actually think the Earth was formed about 12000 years ago. That is how old Niagara Falls is. Have you ever been? If you like casinos, weddings, and impressive waterfalls, which I think you do, then you'd love Niagara Falls.

Now if you want to get into even more creation beliefs, about rocks, I don't think people should believe all the rocks in the universe came from nothing. Makes more sense to believe the rocks have always been here, forever, and the universe is a formation, carved out, molded, magnetized, and set into motion, from
these eternal rocks.

Spongy Iris wrote: I actually think the Earth was formed about 12000 years ago. That is how old Niagara Falls is.

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote: I actually think the Earth was formed about 12000 years ago. That is how old Niagara Falls is.

What makes you think Niagara falls is 12,000 years old? Did someone tell you to believe that, and you OBEYED?

If tomorrow the "official" story were to change and suddenly Niagara Falls were 14,600 years old, would you believe it, and adjust your age of the earth accordingly? ... or would you start to call boooolsch't?

Is Niagara falls surrounded by glass?

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote: I actually think the Earth was formed about 12000 years ago. That is how old Niagara Falls is.

What makes you think Niagara falls is 12,000 years old? Did someone tell you to believe that, and you OBEYED?

If tomorrow the "official" story were to change and suddenly Niagara Falls were 14,600 years old, would you believe it, and adjust your age of the earth accordingly? ... or would you start to call boooolsch't?

Is Niagara falls surrounded by glass?

Swan wrote:

So you believe that the rocks at Niagra falls are 12000 years old, but the rocks in the rest of the universe have been here forever. So you babble two different ages of the universe in one single thought, which shows how morbidly confused of a government shrink that you are. In fact you are actually confused enough to be certified FBI agent James Comey staring up at trees.



Which is pretty pathetic

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

So you believe that the rocks at Niagra falls are 12000 years old, but the rocks in the rest of the universe have been here forever. So you babble two different ages of the universe in one single thought, which shows how morbidly confused of a government shrink that you are. In fact you are actually confused enough to be certified FBI agent James Comey staring up at trees.



Which is pretty pathetic

No I meant: Niagara Falls started flowing about 12000 years ago, but the rocks that Earth was made from have always existed.

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

So you believe that the rocks at Niagra falls are 12000 years old, but the rocks in the rest of the universe have been here forever. So you babble two different ages of the universe in one single thought, which shows how morbidly confused of a government shrink that you are. In fact you are actually confused enough to be certified FBI agent James Comey staring up at trees.



Which is pretty pathetic

No I meant: Niagara Falls started flowing about 12000 years ago, but the rocks that Earth was made from have always existed.

The material that rocks are made of on Earth which includes Niagra is 5 billion years old, however, many rocks are not created until they cool as Hawaii has rocks that are mere seconds old. Niagra falls is millions of years old, not that any water was flowing during the last ice age.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

So you believe that the rocks at Niagra falls are 12000 years old, but the rocks in the rest of the universe have been here forever. So you babble two different ages of the universe in one single thought, which shows how morbidly confused of a government shrink that you are. In fact you are actually confused enough to be certified FBI agent James Comey staring up at trees.



Which is pretty pathetic

No I meant: Niagara Falls started flowing about 12000 years ago, but the rocks that Earth was made from have always existed.

The material that rocks are made of on Earth which includes Niagra is 5 billion years old, however, many rocks are not created until they cool as Hawaii has rocks that are mere seconds old. Niagra falls is millions of years old, not that any water was flowing during the last ice age.

Your radiometric dating analysis assumes the rocks popped into existence from nothing. It also assumes a constant rate of decay.

But I assume the rocks have always existed, and have not decayed at a constant rate.

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

So you believe that the rocks at Niagra falls are 12000 years old, but the rocks in the rest of the universe have been here forever. So you babble two different ages of the universe in one single thought, which shows how morbidly confused of a government shrink that you are. In fact you are actually confused enough to be certified FBI agent James Comey staring up at trees.



Which is pretty pathetic

No I meant: Niagara Falls started flowing about 12000 years ago, but the rocks that Earth was made from have always existed.

The material that rocks are made of on Earth which includes Niagra is 5 billion years old, however, many rocks are not created until they cool as Hawaii has rocks that are mere seconds old. Niagra falls is millions of years old, not that any water was flowing during the last ice age.

Your radiometric dating analysis assumes the rocks popped into existence from nothing. It also assumes a constant rate of decay.

But I assume the rocks have always existed, and have not decayed at a constant rate.

Again there are rocks in Hawaii that are seconds old, so get over it. LOL you can even watch them being born.



So rocks can be brand new

Dopey

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

So you believe that the rocks at Niagra falls are 12000 years old, but the rocks in the rest of the universe have been here forever. So you babble two different ages of the universe in one single thought, which shows how morbidly confused of a government shrink that you are. In fact you are actually confused enough to be certified FBI agent James Comey staring up at trees.



Which is pretty pathetic

No I meant: Niagara Falls started flowing about 12000 years ago, but the rocks that Earth was made from have always existed.

The material that rocks are made of on Earth which includes Niagra is 5 billion years old, however, many rocks are not created until they cool as Hawaii has rocks that are mere seconds old. Niagra falls is millions of years old, not that any water was flowing during the last ice age.

Your radiometric dating analysis assumes the rocks popped into existence from nothing. It also assumes a constant rate of decay.

But I assume the rocks have always existed, and have not decayed at a constant rate.

Again there are rocks in Hawaii that are seconds old, so get over it. LOL you can even watch them being born.



So rocks can be brand new

Dopey

Looks like those are re-formed rocks.

Swan wrote:

That will orient themselves to the current magnetic field.

See I knew that you would come around, everyone does.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

That will orient themselves to the current magnetic field.

See I knew that you would come around, everyone does.

I don't recall arguing against that point.

But I said there doesn't appear to be enough information to know how often the magnetic field flipped in the past. And there doesn't appear to be any reason to expect it will flip again.

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

That will orient themselves to the current magnetic field.

See I knew that you would come around, everyone does.

I don't recall arguing against that point.

But I said there doesn't appear to be enough information to know how often the magnetic field flipped in the past. And there doesn't appear to be any reason to expect it will flip again.

The varying N S orientations in igneous or sedimentary rocks detail past flips, and the currently moving N pole indicates that change is perhaps already happening. However dumb government shrinks like you can never know reality.

But you are amusing at least

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

That will orient themselves to the current magnetic field.

See I knew that you would come around, everyone does.

I don't recall arguing against that point.

But I said there doesn't appear to be enough information to know how often the magnetic field flipped in the past. And there doesn't appear to be any reason to expect it will flip again.

The varying N S orientations in igneous or sedimentary rocks detail past flips, and the currently moving N pole indicates that change is perhaps already happening. However dumb government shrinks like you can never know reality.

But you are amusing at least

Magnetic north barely wanders from the North Pole over the past 50 or 100 years. There is no observable trend.

And you haven't provided enough observations to come to any certain conclusion about when and how often it flipped in the past.

You may now resume jeering.

Spongy Iris wrote:


Magnetic north barely wanders from the North Pole over the past 50 or 100 years. There is no observable trend.

And you haven't provided enough observations to come to any certain conclusion about when and how often it flipped in the past.

You may now resume jeering.

During the past one million years the cycle of ice ages followed by warm periods occurred every 100,000 years. But between 2.8 million years ago and 1.2 million years ago, those cycles were shorter, about 40,000 years, and ice ages were less extreme.
https://today.oregonstate.edu/news/two-million-year-old-ice-provides-snapshot-earth%E2%80%99s-greenhouse-gas-history

James_ wrote:
The Earth's moment of inertia is I = 8.04×10^37 kg·m2. Therefore, it has a rotational kinetic energy of 2.14×10^29 J.
If it rotated 2.5 times faster then that's 2.01x10^38 and 5.35x10^38 (estimates).
Without the Moon then we're basically playing a game of billiards with the Earth.
If you don't get it, multiplying an extremely large number by 10 is significant.
100,000 and 1 million is multiplied by 10. 5 zeroes or six? The change in both rotational and linear velocities shows the effect the Moon has on the Earth.
Kind of for fun, the Earth's mass is 5.972 × 10^24 kg. Can its moment of inertia exceed its mass? This would require doing math to support any given opinion. The moment of inertia is 1/2 of the mass within and outside of one orbit. The Earth's moment of inertia should be 1/2 of the Earth's mass. What's said disagrees with the rules of science.
It's 1/2 inside and outside where the mass is equal on both sides. And then angular momentum (spin) = mv. This helps to show where science is dependent on math.

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:
The Earth's moment of inertia is I = 8.04×10^37 kg·m2. Therefore, it has a rotational kinetic energy of 2.14×10^29 J.
If it rotated 2.5 times faster then that's 2.01x10^38 and 5.35x10^38 (estimates).
Without the Moon then we're basically playing a game of billiards with the Earth.
If you don't get it, multiplying an extremely large number by 10 is significant.
100,000 and 1 million is multiplied by 10. 5 zeroes or six? The change in both rotational and linear velocities shows the effect the Moon has on the Earth.
Kind of for fun, the Earth's mass is 5.972 × 10^24 kg. Can its moment of inertia exceed its mass? This would require doing math to support any given opinion. The moment of inertia is 1/2 of the mass within and outside of one orbit. The Earth's moment of inertia should be 1/2 of the Earth's mass. What's said disagrees with the rules of science.
It's 1/2 inside and outside where the mass is equal on both sides. And then angular momentum (spin) = mv. This helps to show where science is dependent on math.

You and Kamalla Harris ought to have a word salad contest

James_ wrote:

It's possible that an asteroid strike on a faster spinning/moving planet simply flipped the Earth. The tectonic plate upheaval seen in bedrock would suggest dynamics different than a slower rotating and moving planet. Just some basic observations.

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

That will orient themselves to the current magnetic field.

See I knew that you would come around, everyone does.

I don't recall arguing against that point.

But I said there doesn't appear to be enough information to know how often the magnetic field flipped in the past. And there doesn't appear to be any reason to expect it will flip again.

The varying N S orientations in igneous or sedimentary rocks detail past flips, and the currently moving N pole indicates that change is perhaps already happening. However dumb government shrinks like you can never know reality.

But you are amusing at least

Magnetic north barely wanders from the North Pole over the past 50 or 100 years. There is no observable trend.

And you haven't provided enough observations to come to any certain conclusion about when and how often it flipped in the past.

You may now resume jeering.

I do not need to prove anything as you are the fool denying the accepted facts.

Besides you are a moron

Market Summary
>
Apple Inc
182.89 USD
+1.07 (0.59%)today
Closed: Nov 8, 7:59 PM EST * Disclaimer

Eat them Apples sucker

The position of Earth's magnetic north pole was first precisely located in 1831. Since then, it's gradually drifted north-northwest by more than 600 miles (1,100 kilometers), and its forward speed has increased from about 10 miles (16 kilometers) per year to about 34 miles (55 kilometers) per year.Aug 3, 2021

Retard alert for government goon morons

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:
The Earth's moment of inertia is I = 8.04×10^37 kg·m2. Therefore, it has a rotational kinetic energy of 2.14×10^29 J.
If it rotated 2.5 times faster then that's 2.01x10^38 and 5.35x10^38 (estimates).
Without the Moon then we're basically playing a game of billiards with the Earth.
If you don't get it, multiplying an extremely large number by 10 is significant.
100,000 and 1 million is multiplied by 10. 5 zeroes or six? The change in both rotational and linear velocities shows the effect the Moon has on the Earth.
Kind of for fun, the Earth's mass is 5.972 × 10^24 kg. Can its moment of inertia exceed its mass? This would require doing math to support any given opinion. The moment of inertia is 1/2 of the mass within and outside of one orbit. The Earth's moment of inertia should be 1/2 of the Earth's mass. What's said disagrees with the rules of science.
It's 1/2 inside and outside where the mass is equal on both sides. And then angular momentum (spin) = mv. This helps to show where science is dependent on math.

You and Kamalla Harris ought to have a word salad contest

Well to be honest, to discuss climate change would require what effect the Moon has on the Earth's moment of inertia. And since nothing can flip the Earth's core, what could flip the Earth?
And how many millions of years ago was the Earth's magnetic field flipped?
780,000 years ago, when the current cycle of ice ages started. Do you think that'd matter?
Bye Honey Bunny and have a nice life!

p.s., spongy, I left a clue or bread crumbs which could be followed.

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:
The Earth's moment of inertia is I = 8.04×10^37 kg·m2. Therefore, it has a rotational kinetic energy of 2.14×10^29 J.
If it rotated 2.5 times faster then that's 2.01x10^38 and 5.35x10^38 (estimates).
Without the Moon then we're basically playing a game of billiards with the Earth.
If you don't get it, multiplying an extremely large number by 10 is significant.
100,000 and 1 million is multiplied by 10. 5 zeroes or six? The change in both rotational and linear velocities shows the effect the Moon has on the Earth.
Kind of for fun, the Earth's mass is 5.972 × 10^24 kg. Can its moment of inertia exceed its mass? This would require doing math to support any given opinion. The moment of inertia is 1/2 of the mass within and outside of one orbit. The Earth's moment of inertia should be 1/2 of the Earth's mass. What's said disagrees with the rules of science.
It's 1/2 inside and outside where the mass is equal on both sides. And then angular momentum (spin) = mv. This helps to show where science is dependent on math.

You and Kamalla Harris ought to have a word salad contest

Well to be honest, to discuss climate change would require what effect the Moon has on the Earth's moment of inertia. And since nothing can flip the Earth's core, what could flip the Earth?
And how many millions of years ago was the Earth's magnetic field flipped?
780,000 years ago, when the current cycle of ice ages started. Do you think that'd matter?
Bye Honey Bunny and have a nice life!

p.s., spongy, I left a clue or bread crumbs which could be followed.

LOL in one sentence you claim that nothing can flip the Earths core, then in the next you claim that it flipped 780,000 years ago. So like I said you and Kamalla seriously need to have a word salad contest.

Now the Earth's core flips itself as it is not solid and it flips as it moves.

The moon is also a constant that can have no influence on your constipation

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:
The Earth's moment of inertia is I = 8.04×10^37 kg·m2. Therefore, it has a rotational kinetic energy of 2.14×10^29 J.
If it rotated 2.5 times faster then that's 2.01x10^38 and 5.35x10^38 (estimates).
Without the Moon then we're basically playing a game of billiards with the Earth.
If you don't get it, multiplying an extremely large number by 10 is significant.
100,000 and 1 million is multiplied by 10. 5 zeroes or six? The change in both rotational and linear velocities shows the effect the Moon has on the Earth.
Kind of for fun, the Earth's mass is 5.972 × 10^24 kg. Can its moment of inertia exceed its mass? This would require doing math to support any given opinion. The moment of inertia is 1/2 of the mass within and outside of one orbit. The Earth's moment of inertia should be 1/2 of the Earth's mass. What's said disagrees with the rules of science.
It's 1/2 inside and outside where the mass is equal on both sides. And then angular momentum (spin) = mv. This helps to show where science is dependent on math.

You and Kamalla Harris ought to have a word salad contest

Well to be honest, to discuss climate change would require what effect the Moon has on the Earth's moment of inertia. And since nothing can flip the Earth's core, what could flip the Earth?
And how many millions of years ago was the Earth's magnetic field flipped?
780,000 years ago, when the current cycle of ice ages started. Do you think that'd matter?
Bye Honey Bunny and have a nice life!

p.s., spongy, I left a clue or bread crumbs which could be followed.

LOL in one sentence you claim that nothing can flip the Earths core, then in the next you claim that it flipped 780,000 years ago. So like I said you and Kamalla seriously need to have a word salad contest.

Now the Earth's core flips itself as it is not solid and it flips as it moves.

The moon is also a constant that can have no influence on your constipation

The Earth's iron core is not solid? I will never have anyone else in my life Alan because as spongy showed, people love you and hate me. I mean it's like spongy said, when you had it posted that the church would be okay with you sodomizing me while I'm heterosexual, that was my imagination.
Yep, we were grooming each other when what was I saying Alan, like the Jew everything is about you.

p.s., Scientists said the Earth's magnetic flipped 780,000 years ago. I dd not say that I agreed with them but as you said, you will own me as a slave whose mind and will you control. And I doubt you've ever been diagnosed with mental illness because you're a homosexual married to a woman. And you've been looking for a lover in the same way Aaron Hernandez had a lover while being married to a woman. Also, everyone knows the Earth's core is solid iron. And now after a comprehensive study they say iron-nickel solid core;
https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/scientists-discover-new-core-deep-earth-solid-ball-iron-nickel-rcna72194

James_ wrote:
You're disgusting Alan and yet forum owners and moderators are okay with you molesting me. You did say the only way I can get away from you is if I commit suicide.
Don't worry Alan, I'll show your post where you say I have to prove myself to you. Why once your invention is realised I'll destroy it. And you will receive credit for everything.
It's okay because I'll be able to say that the Christian church groomed me to be your victim. They told me there's a man who loves me who wants children suffered to him. After all, I don't have a family because the church wanted me to serve him. That's you, right?

James_ wrote:
From now on everything I do is in the name of my teacher Alan Bauldree of Homer, Louisiana, USA.
There is no Bessler's Wheel. I made that up. I am building Swan's invention which he has been teaching me. Eveyrthing I know is what Alan Bauldree of Homer, Louisiana, USA taught me so he knows it as well. And why I will have nothing to do in the future with anything that Alan Bauldree of Homer, Louisiana, USA has taught me.
I will not be able to have surgery, a girlfriend or anything unless I say Alan Bauldree of Homer, Louisiana, USA. I will not know how to love unless as Alan Bauldree of Homer, Louisiana, USA told me, I will have to spend 4 years in his bed, then and only then will I know how to love, silly me.
And as long as I live in a Christian country I will say that Alan Bauldree of Homer, Louisiana, USA is not a child molester but is a "true" Christian who loves children and loves teaching children. And that any child that learns from Alan Bauldree of Homer, Louisiana, USA has recieved a true blessing from Jesus because Jesus loves Alan Bauldree of Homer, Louisiana, USA.
At the same time I will be asking Thailand for sanctuary based on religious persecution by a religion that teaches children to love a man like Alan Bauldree of Homer, Louisiana, USA.
As such, Alan Bauldree of Homer, Louisiana, USA will represent what Jesus taught so the world will know what the true teachings of Jesus were about, giving "true" Christians like Alan Bauldree of Homer, Louisiana, USA the opportunity to love men like him the way a child should love adults through Jesus. That is what the church is about, just ask Alan Bauldree of Homer, Louisiana, USA because he is a scriptural Christian. And Alan, just as you told me I will make you famous as a Christian teacher, you will get what you prayed, er preyed for so many years. You Alan Bauldree of Homer, Louisiana, USA will be revealing the truth of the Bible to the world. I think they'll make you a saint.
I am almost finished with his wheel. I will mount the hoists (16) today. Tomorrow will be the weight wheels. That will leave only mounting the large discs and add long levers which rotate the hoists. I deserve no credit for my work because Alan Bauldree of Homer, Louisiana, USA has taught me everything I know.
And will I destroy the wheel once people have seen it working? My teacher can repair his wheel if he wants to. And I will move out of the U.S. to get away from Christians, they are all like Alan Bauldree of Homer, Louisiana, USA.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

That will orient themselves to the current magnetic field.

See I knew that you would come around, everyone does.

I don't recall arguing against that point.

But I said there doesn't appear to be enough information to know how often the magnetic field flipped in the past. And there doesn't appear to be any reason to expect it will flip again.

The varying N S orientations in igneous or sedimentary rocks detail past flips, and the currently moving N pole indicates that change is perhaps already happening. However dumb government shrinks like you can never know reality.

But you are amusing at least

Magnetic north barely wanders from the North Pole over the past 50 or 100 years. There is no observable trend.

And you haven't provided enough observations to come to any certain conclusion about when and how often it flipped in the past.

You may now resume jeering.

I do not need to prove anything as you are the fool denying the accepted facts.

Besides you are a moron

Market Summary
>
Apple Inc
182.89 USD
+1.07 (0.59%)today
Closed: Nov 8, 7:59 PM EST * Disclaimer

Eat them Apples sucker

The position of Earth's magnetic north pole was first precisely located in 1831. Since then, it's gradually drifted north-northwest by more than 600 miles (1,100 kilometers), and its forward speed has increased from about 10 miles (16 kilometers) per year to about 34 miles (55 kilometers) per year.Aug 3, 2021

Retard alert for government goon morons

Like I said, inconclusive observation which appears to show magnetic north has gotten closer to the North Pole.

[b]James_ wrote

spongy, when I told my stalker that when I thought of him it made my butt hurt he told me he would even dominate me more. Then when I told him that he reminded me of the guy who sexually molested my 2 oldest brothers he asked me if I would do what he wants. When I said no I got banned from the forum.
Something to consider and I will mention online he is like the center of attention for Penn State football because everyone supports him;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_State_child_sex_abuse_scandal

I think of my stalker in those terms because he considers me to be a child he can molest while calling me silly.

Spongy Iris wrote:

I have more patience and focus, and I don't get annoyed when trolls jeer me online.

Anyway, what's the big deal about Alan not sharing his knowledge of how to make coffee?

James_ wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

I have more patience and focus, and I don't get annoyed when trolls jeer me online.

Anyway, what's the big deal about Alan not sharing his knowledge of how to make coffee?

Enjoy his company.

p.s., With the Earth's magnetic field, what creates it? Why does this matter?
Reversing polarity like you would with a coil is not flipping the magnetic field.
Flipping the magnetic field requires flipping what generates it.

p.s.s., What creates polarity in a magnetic field? What is polarization? When polarity is reversed then what "polarization" is has reversed its poles.

p.s.s.s., With the observed changes in strata/rocks that are exposed, did the Earth's magnetic field reverse its polarity or was the Earth flipped? If the Earth
was flipped then eventually it would realign itself which means that it would flip again to agree with the Earth's own gravity and the Sun's. The Earth's gravitational field and its magnetic field might be relative to one another.
And now you and Alan have much you can discuss.

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

I have more patience and focus, and I don't get annoyed when trolls jeer me online.

Anyway, what's the big deal about Alan not sharing his knowledge of how to make coffee?

Enjoy his company.

p.s., With the Earth's magnetic field, what creates it? Why does this matter?
Reversing polarity like you would with a coil is not flipping the magnetic field.
Flipping the magnetic field requires flipping what generates it.

p.s.s., What creates polarity in a magnetic field? What is polarization? When polarity is reversed then what "polarization" is has reversed its poles.

p.s.s.s., With the observed changes in strata/rocks that are exposed, did the Earth's magnetic field reverse its polarity or was the Earth flipped? If the Earth
was flipped then eventually it would realign itself which means that it would flip again to agree with the Earth's own gravity and the Sun's. The Earth's gravitational field and its magnetic field might be relative to one another.
And now you and Alan have much you can discuss.

The Earths core is what creates the magnetic field, and it does flip by its internal motion as it is not solid at all but is a viscous fluid under pressure

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

I have more patience and focus, and I don't get annoyed when trolls jeer me online.

Anyway, what's the big deal about Alan not sharing his knowledge of how to make coffee?

Enjoy his company.

p.s., With the Earth's magnetic field, what creates it? Why does this matter?
Reversing polarity like you would with a coil is not flipping the magnetic field.
Flipping the magnetic field requires flipping what generates it.

p.s.s., What creates polarity in a magnetic field? What is polarization? When polarity is reversed then what "polarization" is has reversed its poles.

p.s.s.s., With the observed changes in strata/rocks that are exposed, did the Earth's magnetic field reverse its polarity or was the Earth flipped? If the Earth
was flipped then eventually it would realign itself which means that it would flip again to agree with the Earth's own gravity and the Sun's. The Earth's gravitational field and its magnetic field might be relative to one another.
And now you and Alan have much you can discuss.

The Earths core is what creates the magnetic field, and it does flip by its internal motion as it is not solid at all but is a viscous fluid under pressure

Your opinion has been noted. If you can present scientific information or show the maths then we could discuss the basis of your statement. It is up to you to provide information that supports your perspective.

James_ wrote:
Swan, too lazy to show that you know what you're talking about? Sure seems that way to me. And I don't really have time for your games.