Can we control the temperature of Earth?

An intellegent person would not be dumb enough to keep linking to a graph on a crackpot's web site that plots the Earth's MF against global tempertaures. That graph shows that temperature curves “heavily” differs from the Earth Magnetic Field curves.
Click to expand...
That is a very good point, perhaps you should try linking to a web site that plots global temperatures against the proliferation of piracy. It would be more at Bjarne's level. :)
 
An intellegent person would not be dumb enough to keep linking to a graph on a crackpot's web site that plots the Earth's MF against global tempertaures. That graph shows that temperature curves “heavily” differs from the Earth Magnetic Field curves.
Click to expand...

I have in the start of the thread shown that it is well know that the shown coincidence between global temperatures and the Earth MF is well known and accepted by the scientific community

It is not my "invention" - I am only trying to understand how it is possible.

And I agree with the world’s most stupid cow, that the asserted geo dynamo can in no way cause such coincidence.

An intelligent person would link to the scientific paper that plots global temperatures against the cosmic ray flux or all of the factors that influence the cosmic ray flux.
Click to expand...
Such do not exist.
Time will come.
All cows agree (both the intelligent and the stupid) that it is impossible to adapt this fact to the geodynamo.

The days for the Geo-D-Crap is numbered.
 
Flaws in and outstanding questions about Bjarne's MF idea

Bjarne has an idea that the Earth's magnetic field is generated by ferromagnets in the Earth's crust and the solar wind.The flaws in this idea are easy to see:
  1. The magnetic poles have been measured to be ~5000 kilometers below the surface of the Earth.
    This has been known for 172 years :eye-poppi !
  2. The solar wind does not change the overall strength of the Earth's MF at any time.
    It has even stopped without any effects on the MF.
    AFAIK The strength of the MF does not vary as the Magnetic North Pole moves around the Artic Ocean nor with the strength of the solar wind as it is in the "central Artic ocean". But I am sure Bjarne can correct me with many scientific papers showing just that :rolleyes: .

  3. Crustal magnetism is < 2% of the Earth's magnetism!
    Bjarne, if you have sources that contradict this please cite them.
    Rocks aren't strongly enough magnetized to account for the observed geomagnetic field
    First asked 16 February 2010
At this point his idea is totally invalid. There is no point in looking at it any more but there are even more flaws
  1. The crust varies in thickness - the MF does not correlate
    AFAIK, The strength of a magnetic field from a ferromagnetic material depends on the amount of the material. There is less crust under oceans and so Bjarne's idea predicts a geographical correlation between the MF strength and oceans.
  2. MF reversals are not explained by Bjarne's idea
    The only ways that I can think of to reverse the MF in his idea are to turn the Earth's crust inside out or to heat it all up to ~800K and apply an external field.
    First Asked 2 March 2010
    I am currently trying to get him to explain his MF reversal in simple terms but just fantasies so far.
  3. What is your evidence that dynamo theory is wrong?
    First asked 9 March 2010
Then there is the evidence of his lack of knowledge of physics:
Questions that he is unable to answer coherently:
  1. What magnetic field is predicted by a ferromagnetic crust model?
    First asked 15 February 2010
  2. Sources to support your assertion that the Earth's MF strength is influenced by the solar wind at any time
    First asked 16 February 2010
    The physical evidence is that the solar wind obviously shapes the Earth's magnetosphere. Geomagnetic storms can even influence the Earth's surface over short periods. But when the solar wind varies (or even stops) the overall strength of the MF does not change.
  3. What creates your Big Box of Thermal Heat?
    First asked 26 February 2010
    He seems to think that oceanic crust is hotter than continental crust. As far as I know, he is wrong. He can prove me wrong with some citations to the literature that he is using for his idea.
  4. What about the magnetic field of the Moon?
    First asked 1 March 2010
    So far just vague stuff about thermal heat, e.g. "Simply because the Moon do not have thermal Heat". But a lack of "thermal heat" increases the MF strength of ferromagnetic materials!
Bjarne - this question shoud be the easiest to answer:First asked 2 March 2010 (now a formal question)
Bjarne,
Can you explain any actual polarity reversal event in simple, understandable terms?
Use only 2 magnetic poles. Pick an actual polarity reversal event rather than your previous fantasy.

Start with
  1. The North Magnet Pole is near the north pole and the South Magnetic Pole is near the south pole.
  2. Event A happens.
  3. Event B happens.
  4. Event C happens.
  5. The North Magnet Pole is now near the south pole and the South Magnetic Pole is near the north pole.
Event's A, B and C (and D, etc. if you need to add them) should correspond with the actual observations of how an actual MF reversal happened.
 
----------------

Bjarne has an idea that the Earth's magnetic field is generated by ferromagnets in the Earth's crust and the solar wind. The flaws in this idea are easy to see:
Click to expand...

RC
Try to keep it cow-logic-simple my friend

Try to see it from a overall cow-perspective.

Here we go:

What is the cause of the coincidence between global temperatures and the MF or the Earth.
http://www.science27.com/HS/Felt2.jpg

You have 3 options:

Either

Option 1.
You believe the Geo Dynamo can affect the global temperatures of the Earth , / or you believe the global temperatures of the Earth can affect the Geo dynamo? (As mention the world most stupid cow and all the intelligent do not believe in this religion).

Option 2.
You just ignore reality and the problem does not exist.

Option 3
A Ferromagnetic field and the Solar wind / storms are involved.

My friend, doesn’t matter if you like it or not, - you have one bullet left.
On that bullet is written that the MF of the Earth is caused by the way I have described in this thread.

The math is simple 3 options minus option-1 ignore minus option-2 = one option left. (obtion-3)

So do you agree, you have only one bullet left ?

I hope you this time understand the math and the unit “One Option” – the 2 first failed to explain the mystery.

And my friend, that’s it.

----------------
 
Bjarne said:
----------------
What is the cause of the coincidence between global temperatures and the MF or the Earth.
http://www.science27.com/HS/Felt2.jpg
Click to expand...
None of the above cow ideas.
Changes in the Earth's MF cause changes in global temperature through a couple of effects, e.g. allowing more cosmic rays to cause more clouds, allowing the solar wind to interact more strongly with the upper atmosphere. The correlation is weak:
  • There are variations in the MF over a scale of 100's of years that are not followed by global temperatures.
  • 10,000 years ago there was a big increase in MF strength that had no effect at all on temperature.
The fact is that it is impossible for the Earth's MF to be generated from the crust:
  1. The magnetic poles have been measured to be ~5000 kilometers below the surface of the Earth.
    This has been known for 172 years :eye-poppi !
  2. The solar wind does not change the overall strength of the Earth's MF at any time.
    It has even stopped without any effects on the MF.
    AFAIK The strength of the MF does not vary as the Magnetic North Pole moves around the Artic Ocean nor with the strength of the solar wind as it is in the "central Artic ocean". But I am sure Bjarne can correct me with many scientific papers showing just that :rolleyes: .
  3. Crustal magnetism is < 2% of the Earth's magnetism!
    Bjarne, if you have sources that contradict this please cite them.
    Rocks aren't strongly enough magnetized to account for the observed geomagnetic field
    First asked 16 February 2010
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
I have in the start of the thread shown that it is well know that the shown coincidence between global temperatures and the Earth MF is well known and accepted by the scientific community

It is not my "invention" - I am only trying to understand how it is possible.
Click to expand...

Actually, the correlation is rather superficial, but let's for a moment assume it is true: The magnetic field of Earth has an influence on the climate.

And I agree with the world’s most stupid cow, that the asserted geo dynamo can in no way cause such coincidence.
Click to expand...

Then why do you agree on that? What has the origin of the magnetic field to do with it's putative effect on the climate? Why exactly is a ferromagnetic field able to affect the climate, but not a geodynamic one?

Hans
 
Bjarne said:
----------------

You have 3 options:

Either

Option 1.
You believe the Geo Dynamo can affect the global temperatures of the Earth , / or you believe the global temperatures of the Earth can affect the Geo dynamo? (As mention the world most stupid cow and all the intelligent do not believe in this religion).

Option 2.
You just ignore reality and the problem does not exist.

Option 3
A Ferromagnetic field and the Solar wind / storms are involved.
Click to expand...

Option 4: A Geo Dynamo field and Solar wind / storms are involved.

Option 5: The correlation is imaginary, or due to something entirely different.

Hans
 
There are variations in the MF over a scale of 100's of years that are not followed by global temperatures.
Click to expand...
Actually most of the time the periods that not are parallel is up to 2 to 3000 years.
But in the long run this is "insignificant".
We are talking about 100.000 years period where the overall parallel curves is a fact.

The way to understand the graph is: http://www.science27.com/HS/Felt2.jpg
Basic.
The graph shows that global temperatures are changing fast, BUT temperature slow (“heavy”).

How this possible if the solar wind is should be the cause of both temperature and magnetic variation ?

Temperatures Variation
Comic rays are (off course) not delayed.
When the Suns (and the Earth’s) MF is weak we will have more clouds fast.
This mean temperature changing will happens almost immediately (There can be relative small delays, globally either to cool or heat the Earth).
But the effect is relative fast. This is what we see in the graph.

Magnetic Variation
The magnetic variation can be delayed in hundreds of years (up to 2 to 3000 years).
Simply because the moving MNP is completely it’s own.
The motion of MNP is completely "accidental".
For example the last 2 to 3000 years the MF of the Earth have been decreasing,
BUT the Suns MF has been strong.
If this not would have been the case, maybe many countries would't have existed (been over flooded).
This statement is not something I “invent” see for you self that this seesm to be the rhyme of nature that repeat it self.
The last interglacial period was 3 degree warmer.
http://www.rcs.au.com/data/images/news/2009/graph-5.jpg

This suggests that the MF of the Earth in that period was much stronger.
It also could suggest that there were stronger cosmic rays, or uncertainty measurement result.

Several factors play a role, and yes it immediately can (seen from a limit perspective) look like this staement is contradictionary.

We know that there is a coincidence between the Earth’s heavy and slow magnetic field variation, - and the much faster temperature variation.
We can see that on the BIG scale these are “parallel” .
This is common knowledge that shall NOT be under estimated.

Furthermore we know there is a lot more problem to get serveral phenomena's to adapt to the Geo Dynamo speculation.
  • The facts that in period the Earth magnetic field is so weak that it remind of the magnetic field of Mars, that doesn’t have any inner dynamo, but only a weak and chaotic ferro magnetic crust field. - In these periods not the worlds must stupid cow can see any need for a inner dynamo.
  • The South Atlantic Anomaly can’t be explained by a inner dynamo muddle, but a ferro magnetic crust theory doesn’t have that problem.
  • The many of the crust anomalies can’t be explain by the geo speculation, - but a ferro magnetic field combined with thermal heat flow doesn’t have that problem.
  • The coincidence between thermal heat and magnetic anomalies can not be explained by a inner dynamo speculation, but a ferro magnetic crust field theory doesn’t have that problem.

Therefore we should be much more carefully to brainwash everyone with the Geo Dynamo religion.
I mean it is always good that at least one is left behind ready to step the brake.

Then why do you agree on that? What has the origin of the magnetic field to do with it's putative effect on the climate? Why exactly is a ferromagnetic field able to affect the climate, but not a geodynamic one?
Click to expand...
We know that Sunstorm affect and periodically increases the MF of the Earth.
BUT the Earth will soon after a Sun storm loose these contributions.
Notice we have only measured that in a period of about 30 years.
In this period MNP have moved in abad magnetic conductive area.

The fast motion in a bad conductive areas rearranges the MF and make the MF chaotic.
The faster MNP moves and the stronger MNP is, the more it will interrupt the MF in its “wake”, and hence the MF of the Earth will fast lose magnetic force.
So soon MNP (in these years) arrives and stay inside a thermal heated area in the Artic Ocean, - MNP (the MF of the Earth) will loose its ability to created magnetic chaos. Hence the MF as well as the contribution from the Sun will no longer be lost.
 
Last edited:
Where does Jupiter's magnetic field come from?

Bjarne, since you have difficulties explaining the magnetic field of the Moon lets move on to look at Jupiter.
  • Its magnetic field is the strongest in the solar system (excluding those measured from sunspots).
  • Jupiter may or may not have a dense core. The current thinking is a dense core of "12 to 45 times the Earth's mass or roughly 3%–15% of the total mass of Jupiter".
    Of couse your idea requires a rocky core so that there is a ferromagnetic crust.
  • That core may be rocky with an outer layer of metallic hydrogen.
  • The temperature of the center of Jupiter is past the Curie temperature so there is no ferromagnetic material. ("The temperature at the core boundary is estimated to be 36,000 K and the interior pressure is roughly 3,000–4,500 GPa").
So Jupiter has no ferromagnetic crust.

First asked 20 March 2010
Bjarne,
Where does Jupiter's magnetic field come from?
 
Bjarne, since you have difficulties explaining the magnetic field of the Moon lets move on to look at Jupiter.
Click to expand...

I have not. 3 times I have explained you and 3 times you have ignore it.

The condition (thermal heat flow) for integration is not there on the Moon or on Mars.

  • Its magnetic field is the strongest in the solar system (excluding those measured from sunspots).
  • Jupiter may or may not have a dense core. The current thinking is a dense core of "12 to 45 times the Earth's mass or roughly 3%–15% of the total mass of Jupiter".
    Of couse your idea requires a rocky core so that there is a ferromagnetic crust.
  • That core may be rocky with an outer layer of metallic hydrogen.
  • The temperature of the center of Jupiter is past the Curie temperature so there is no ferromagnetic material. ("The temperature at the core boundary is estimated to be 36,000 K and the interior pressure is roughly 3,000–4,500 GPa").
So Jupiter has no ferromagnetic crust.

First asked 20 March 2010
Bjarne,
Where does Jupiter's magnetic field come from?
Click to expand...

Let me start to mention that when we were visited Jupiter almost nothing on or near Jupiter was like expected.
There was many big surprised.
For example Jupiter did also give off much more heat as expected.
We still do not know how this is possible.
The Moon Io has volcanic activity and Europe properly an ocean below the Ice cover.
This as well was surprising.
Like the Earth, - Jupiter can have a inner solid body and like the Earth a relative cooler crust. Hence Jupiter MF could also be caused by ferrro magnetism.

But Jupiter also has a fast rotating atmosphere. This as well could cause a global magnetic field.

I believe that the underlying cause of magnetism is space in motion.
When matter moves, space connected to matter must move too.
Hence matter in motion set space in motion.

Let’s moves to the sun
At the sun we have the so-called Protuberances, (fast moving plasma) with up to 80.000 Km/t thrown out in space. This will certainly create space in motion.

The magnetic field is up to 1000 times stronger nere these Protuberances than the main MF of the sun. This show that space is moving out from the sun, - (and ends up like the solar wind).

img_33.jpg


We know that the Sun, for short periods of time, has 2 magnetic fields, one in each hemisphere.
WHY ? - We don't klnow.
The conclusion is simple;
The dynamo is driven by fast motion of plasma that pulls space at the Suns equator behind it self, and therefore induces a (circulating) magnetic field.
It is probably also the strong circulation of space (plasma) that is responsible for the Sun’s ability to quickly return to a global united magnetic field, i.e., only one magnetic south pole and one magnetic north pole.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_poles_030423.html

Therefore Jupiter’s fast moving thick atmosphere could probably also be either completely or partly responsible for the MF on Jupiter.

But still there is a lot we need to know about Jupiter.
Juno will (if it succeed the mission) give us much more knowledge.
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
I have not. 3 times I have explained you and 3 times you have ignore it.
Click to expand...

And three times you have been told why you are wrong by people who actually know something about the subject,but you refuse to listen or learn anything.Keep the thread going,at least I've been adding to my knowledge.
 
Where does Jupiter's magnetic field come from?

Bjarne said:
I have not. 3 times I have explained you and 3 times you have ignore it.

The condition (thermal heat flow) for integration is not there on the Moon or on Mars.
Click to expand...
You have not (this is the 4th time that I have told you) other than displaying your ignorance of physics.
There is no connection between thermal heat flow and magnetism.

Bjarne said:
I believe that the underlying cause of magnetism is space in motion.
When matter moves, space connected to matter must move too.
Hence matter in motion set space in motion.
Click to expand...
If you knew any physics then you would know that the "underlying cause" of magnetism is charges in "motion", e.g. the QM spin of electrons causes ferromagnetism, moving electrons in a wire cause a magnetic field, etc.
The motion of charges is the cause of the Earth's magnetic field.
The motion of charges is the cause of the Moon's magnetic field.
The motion of charges is the cause of the Mars' magnetic field.
The motion of charges is the cause of the Jupiters's magnetic field.

Bjarne said:
....
Click to expand...
Your idea is that the magnetic field of the Earth (and so other planets) comes from a ferromagnetic crust.
You also keep on parroting your unsupported assertion that the dynamo theory is wrong.
Guess what
  • Jupiter has no ferromagnetic crust.
  • the dynamo theory is applicable to Jupiter!
So can you answer the question or is your idea totally useless :jaw-dropp ?

Reality Check said:
Bjarne, since you have difficulties explaining the magnetic field of the Moon lets move on to look at Jupiter.
  • Its magnetic field is the strongest in the solar system (excluding those measured from sunspots).
  • Jupiter may or may not have a dense core. The current thinking is a dense core of "12 to 45 times the Earth's mass or roughly 3%–15% of the total mass of Jupiter".
    Of couse your idea requires a rocky core so that there is a ferromagnetic crust.
  • That core may be rocky with an outer layer of metallic hydrogen.
  • The temperature of the center of Jupiter is past the Curie temperature so there is no ferromagnetic material. ("The temperature at the core boundary is estimated to be 36,000 K and the interior pressure is roughly 3,000–4,500 GPa").
So Jupiter has no ferromagnetic crust.


First asked 20 March 2010
Bjarne,
Where does Jupiter's magnetic field come from?
Click to expand...
 
So can you answer the question or is your idea totally useless
Click to expand...

And what about the MF's of the Sun's – RC ?
Here you must admit your inner dynamo speculation is death.
And you must admit that we are fare from understanding the underlying nature /cuase of magnetism.
Magnetism is like gravity; we MUST (pretend) to understand everything based on basic knowledge that is almost nothing except a superficial half wind.
 
(Added the Jupiter question)
Bjarne has an idea that the Earth's magnetic field is generated by ferromagnets in the Earth's crust and the solar wind.The flaws in this idea are easy to see:
  1. The magnetic poles have been measured to be ~5000 kilometers below the surface of the Earth.
    This has been known for 172 years :eye-poppi !
  2. The solar wind does not change the overall strength of the Earth's MF at any time.
    It has even stopped without any effects on the MF.
    AFAIK The strength of the MF does not vary as the Magnetic North Pole moves around the Artic Ocean nor with the strength of the solar wind as it is in the "central Artic ocean". But I am sure Bjarne can correct me with many scientific papers showing just that :rolleyes: .

  3. Crustal magnetism is < 2% of the Earth's magnetism!
    Bjarne, if you have sources that contradict this please cite them.
    Rocks aren't strongly enough magnetized to account for the observed geomagnetic field
    First asked 16 February 2010
At this point his idea is totally invalid. There is no point in looking at it any more but there are even more flaws
  1. The crust varies in thickness - the MF does not correlate
    AFAIK, The strength of a magnetic field from a ferromagnetic material depends on the amount of the material. There is less crust under oceans and so Bjarne's idea predicts a geographical correlation between the MF strength and oceans.
  2. MF reversals are not explained by Bjarne's idea
    The only ways that I can think of to reverse the MF in his idea are to turn the Earth's crust inside out or to heat it all up to ~800K and apply an external field.
    First Asked 2 March 2010
    I am currently trying to get him to explain his MF reversal in simple terms but just fantasies so far.
  3. What is your evidence that dynamo theory is wrong?
    First asked 9 March 2010
Then there is the evidence of his lack of knowledge of physics:
Questions that he is unable to answer coherently:
  1. What magnetic field is predicted by a ferromagnetic crust model?
    First asked 15 February 2010
  2. Sources to support your assertion that the Earth's MF strength is influenced by the solar wind at any time
    First asked 16 February 2010
    The physical evidence is that the solar wind obviously shapes the Earth's magnetosphere. Geomagnetic storms can even influence the Earth's surface over short periods. But when the solar wind varies (or even stops) the overall strength of the MF does not change.
  3. What creates your Big Box of Thermal Heat?
    First asked 26 February 2010
    He seems to think that oceanic crust is hotter than continental crust. As far as I know, he is wrong. He can prove me wrong with some citations to the literature that he is using for his idea.
  4. What about the magnetic field of the Moon?
    First asked 1 March 2010
    So far just vague stuff about thermal heat, e.g. "Simply because the Moon do not have thermal Heat". But a lack of "thermal heat" increases the MF strength of ferromagnetic materials!
  5. I am currently trying to get him to explain his MF reversal in simple terms but just fantasies so far.
    First Asked 2 March 2010
  6. Where does Jupiter's magnetic field come from?
    First Asked 20 March 2010
    Jupiter does not have a ferromagnetic crust.
    The answer is an internal dynamo similar to Earth's

 
Bjarne said:
And what about the MF's of the Sun's – RC ?
...
Click to expand...
Are you that ignorant and incapable of looking up basic science, Bjarne?
Find out for yourself (a small clue: dynamo theory)

Here you must admit your ferromagnetic crust speculation is death.

And you must admit that we know the underlying nature /cause of magnetism.

Magnetism is at all like gravity; we MUST understand everything based on basic knowledge that is almost everything except a superficial half wind that you cannot understand.
 
Reality Check said:
It is understood.
My small hint is what you cannot understand.
Click to expand...

Magnetic “Geo” Dynamo inside the SUN, - and it is understood ?
HA HA HA HA HA how funny………

Bjarne said:
---
The fatal flaws and basic ignorance of RC's “knowledge” reveals he have much more to lean & understand:

  1. RC doesn’t know that the so called “Curvature of Space” - could in fact mean; "Stretching Space” , - and that this property could very well be completely identical with the expanding /stretching space.
  2. RC doesn’t know how matter causes the curvature off space
  3. RC doesn’t know what causes ADG
  4. RC doesn’t know the true nature of the expansive space
  5. RC doesn’t know what kind of matter the so called dark matter really is.
  6. RC doesn’t know why people down under doesn’t fall of the Earth (except; because of the property: mass-attraction).
  7. RC doesn’t know what causes mass-attraction or what it really is, or what it really have with "gravity" (curved sapce) to do...
  8. RC doesn’t know how exactly matter and space are connected
  9. RC doesn’t know how matter can affect space billion of km away from it self.
  10. RC doesn’t know why a grain of sand affects the whole Universe.
  11. RC doesn’t know the underlying cause of magnetism
  12. RC doesn’t know if there are any similarities between magnetism and gravity.
  13. RC doesn’t know the cause of the Sun magnetic field
  14. RC doesn’t know why the MF of the Earth is coincident with the temperature variation, and he and million of others prefer to ignore it.
  15. RC doesn’t know when the next age will start, or if there at all will come one more
  16. RC doesn’t know why the Sun right now is slowing downs its activity.
  17. RC doesn’t know why elementary interacts / exchange a virtual particle
  18. RC doesn’t know why spin up and down is “connected” and what that has with a “virtual particle to do”
  19. RC doesn’t know why some space probes decelerate and other accelerate
  20. RC doesn’t know why many planets not are where these “should” be
  21. RC doesn’t how it is possible that Jupiter’s atmosphere must have come from a cooler place.
  22. RC doesn’t know that there is coincidence between stars rotation and distance to the planets, or why.
  23. RC doesn’t know how the Solar system was created; - the old model is full of problem.
  24. RC doesn’t know what energy drives hurricanes for example on Jupiter and Neptune.
  25. RC doesn’t know that so soon time change due to gravity, the yardstick must change too, otherwise the law of nature will not be the same everywhere.
  26. RC doesn’t know that because of that the yardstick also changes when times does, the Mercury orbit anomaly is not solved. – It can’t be.
  27. RC doesn’t know what really causes resistance against motion, - except he know the word that express that (“Erspillten Ladenburmer or Intertia”)
  28. RC doesn’t know any logical reason to why, resistance against motion suddenly “vups” should disappear out in the blue, when constant speed is reached.
  29. RC doesn’t know how to calculate the “negative velocity” due to the resistance of motion, (and hence of cause not able to judge whether any calculation are right or wrong).
  30. RC doesn’t know why the most of all stars are to fast or too slow (according to Keplerian orbits) – (except he believe in the fanatic brain washed & mass hypnotic creeds : dark matter)
  31. RC doesn’t know that stars central in a galaxy “falls from the sky” – they “should” not do so.
  32. RC doesn’t know if space close around us expand or not or how much compared to the rest of the universe. RC believe it not expands, but he don’t know why he believe so, except he can not see it happen.
  33. RC doesn’t know, and can not calculate exactly where the (alleged) borders are where space expands / not expand. (Properly because such do not exist).
  34. RC doesn’t know if the expanding Universe really is accelerating, since he haven’t understood almost anything regarding this question, - for example so long he can not calculate the “borders" mentioned above.
  35. RC doesn’t know why black holes have force/sizes proportional with the masses of galaxies where the black holes are found... and amazingly RC still pretend we know everything about the relation matter / space, and hence that we really have understood the central nature of gravity....(!).
  36. RC doesn’t know that there is no Magnetic “Geo” Dynamo inside the SUN, and he belive it is understood.

And the list is growing.

How can RC, judge what space & matter does or not does, - or how nature really is connected or not connected ?

---
Click to expand...
 
Bjarne said:
Magnetic “Geo” Dynamo inside the SUN, - and it is understood ?
HA HA HA HA HA how funny………
Click to expand...
HA HA HA HA HA how funny………That your ignorance coninues to be so deep.
  1. Curved space is not contracted space
  2. I do know (General relativity).
  3. I do know (gravity)
  4. I do know (General relativity).
  5. No one knows - they just know what the properties of dark mater are (it is dark and matter!)
  6. I do know (gravity)
  7. I do know (gravity)
  8. I do know (General relativity)
  9. I do know (forces)
  10. I do know (forces)
  11. I do know (electromagnetism)
  12. I do know - classically both are inverse square laws.
  13. Sun's magnetic field.
  14. I know that the MF of the Earth is not coincident with the temperature variation.
    • There are variations in the MF over a scale of 100's of years that are not followed by global temperatures.
    • 10,000 years ago there was a big increase in MF strength that had no effect at all on temperature.
  15. No one knows when but there will be more ice ages.
  16. That is wrong. The Sun is currently increasing its activity with more sunspots appearing. It is possible that this cycle will be a weak one.
  17. I do know (Virtual particle).
  18. Spin up and spin down is not "connected". They are separate states of a particle with spin, e.g. an electron has a spin of 1/2.
  19. No one knows (not even you).
  20. Gibberish. There is nothing strange about finding gas giants close to stars when you use a detection technique that can only find big planets close to stars.
  21. Citation needed.
  22. I do know - conservation of angular momentum.
  23. I do know - Formation and evolution of the Solar System
  24. I do know - Jupiter, Neptune (rotation + internal heat)
  25. I do know that General relativity includes that the laws of physics must be the same in all frames of reference ("law of nature will not be the same everywhere"). That is why it is expressed in terms of tensors not the simpler math you see in high school. Add in the equivalence principle and you get time dilation in a gravity field and that the "yardstick" changes.
  26. I do know that because the yardstick also changes when times does, the "Mercury orbit anomaly" is solved. General relativity matches the observations of the perihelion precession of Mercury.
  27. I do know - resistance against motion does not exist. Resistance against changes in motion does exist - inertia.
  28. I do know - resistance against motion does not exist.
  29. I do know - there is no resistance of motion. If you are thinking of your silly "kinetic resistance" then that idea merely shows your ignorance
  30. I do know the observational evidence for dark matter.
  31. I do know that there is no reason stopping stars from falling into the super-massive black holes in the center of galaxies.
  32. I do know that space around us does expand. The definition of the expansion of space-time means that the entire universe expands.
  33. There are no "borders are where space expands / not expand".
  34. I do know that the expansion rate of the universe is measured to be increasing - Dark energy is the label given to the cause for this.
  35. I do know that the relationship between the size of super-massive black holes and their galaxies has nothing to do with your silly ideas. It does suggest that the super-massive black holes formed first and then the galaxies formed around them.
  36. Unlike Bjarne, RC knows that the best scientific explanation for the magnetic field of the Sun is dynamo theory and it is understood!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom