It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by buddhasystem
Please explain the electron dipole moment based on this. Hint: you can't.
I already have its accepted science and I posted a quote and link to the Harvard site which you ignored and continue the steady stream of BS from your mouth as is your tactic. Thanks for accentuating and illustrating my point though.
Magnetite and Titanomagnetite exhibit magnetic properties which are attributable to the micro-structures developed during oxidation and exsolution: All magnetite iron ores which are lodestones contain maghemite. These lodestones have Hc between 10 and 30 mT, SIRM between 8 and 18 Am2kg1, and RI between 0.10 and 0.26. Magnetite, titanomagnetite and metals have REM values (ratio of NRM to SIRM) >0.1) can be verified as not to be due to contamination by man and does not contain MD hematite then the rock has LRM (lightning remanent magnetization). The magnetic field associated with lightning can be revealed from an isothermal remanent acquisition (RA) curve.
Originally posted by squiz
reply to post by buddhasystem
Well I checked one of your links, and it confirms variation with the sunspot cycle? What are you talking about?
For every link you could find saying no correlation you'l find dozens that do.
Because the SK-I and SK-II solar neutrino datasets span an interval of 9.5 years coinciding
with nearly the full period of solar cycle 23, it is also interesting to check for correlation of the
measured solar neutrino flux with the number of sunspots. The SK-I and -II data are compiled
into 1-year bins between 1996 and 2006 and the fluxes for these years are shown along with the
solar activity in Fig. 3. The solar neutrino flux is stable across this time period and shows no
correlation with the minima and maximum of solar cycle 23.
Once again I'll state that my post wiki post was intentional, can you prove any of it?
Your play on words is of no consequence, all you have provided is insults really, So explain to me
exactly, not enough nuclear reactions to account for what? a neutrino deficit ?
The suns interior is completely hypothetical, but you can't admit.
You failed to address any of the issues.
I'm not still waiting, I think this is the answer:
Originally posted by masterp
I am still waiting for an answer why we don't see the electricity going into the Sun.
Originally posted by squiz
I'd just want to add, I don't think the external power source is the real issue. As Don Scott says what we must recognize is that all the features of the sun on and above the surface are explainable in terms of known plasma physics. If there is a magnetic dynamo at the heart of the sun, which is what NASA recently proposed.
So it's the "most speculative part" is an admission of speculation rather than proof. I'm not sure what more explanation you expect to see, that's as good as you're going to get.
go watch Don Scotts presentation for NASA he also shares the same sentiment.
And as I must repeat admits it to be the most speculative part.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I don't have any proof of my speculative theory about pink flying elephants either, but nobody has proved it's wrong.
Oh boy, I really need to chew it up, don't I? To account for the total energy produced by the Sun.
Oh really? I pointed out the completely idiotic nature of proposition that tau and mu neutrinos are produced on the surface, and your assertion that there is plenty of energy produced on the surface as well. So there.
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife
Venus has no planetary magnetic field.
Mars has no planetary magnetic field.
The Moon has no planetary magnetic field.
Originally posted by buddhasystem
Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by buddhasystem
Please explain the electron dipole moment based on this. Hint: you can't.
I already have its accepted science and I posted a quote and link to the Harvard site which you ignored and continue the steady stream of BS from your mouth as is your tactic. Thanks for accentuating and illustrating my point though.
Let me help you further. This is the abstract you quoted:
Magnetite and Titanomagnetite exhibit magnetic properties which are attributable to the micro-structures developed during oxidation and exsolution: All magnetite iron ores which are lodestones contain maghemite. These lodestones have Hc between 10 and 30 mT, SIRM between 8 and 18 Am2kg1, and RI between 0.10 and 0.26. Magnetite, titanomagnetite and metals have REM values (ratio of NRM to SIRM) >0.1) can be verified as not to be due to contamination by man and does not contain MD hematite then the rock has LRM (lightning remanent magnetization). The magnetic field associated with lightning can be revealed from an isothermal remanent acquisition (RA) curve.
What does is have to do with the question I asked? The ignorami visiting this board have a tendency to pull random links and claim relevance. Sad.
REM value serves as a witness parameter to the magnetic fields associated with the lightning bolt
Originally posted by hawkiye
It appears you are the one that needs help.
REM value serves as a witness parameter to the magnetic fields associated with the lightning bolt
There is the source of the dipole alignment.
Originally posted by buddhasystem
Originally posted by hawkiye
It appears you are the one that needs help.
I don't, but you you didn't even get the question I asked you twice.
REM value serves as a witness parameter to the magnetic fields associated with the lightning bolt
There is the source of the dipole alignment.
I didn't ask about minerals being magnetized by current, I twice asked you specifically about
electron magnetic dipole moment,
which is unrelated to any particular mineral through which a current has passed. My guess is that you don't know what it is.
Originally posted by john_bmth
Never mind arguing on a forum, how about the Electric Universe people put together a paper and get it peer-reviewed by experts in the field rather than anonymous internet posters?
Originally posted by john_bmth
Can you link me to some papers that have been peer-reviewed and published, then?
Originally posted by hawkiye
Originally posted by john_bmth
Can you link me to some papers that have been peer-reviewed and published, then?
Nope sorry if you were truly interested you would have already found them. I am not posting anymore links in this thread as there is already a ton.You'll have to do your own research.