Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Methane Hydrate Club] Solar Activity Report for 7/10/02

Expand Messages
  • David
    ... that ... because ... Rocks at the North Pole?? Seeing as how the North Pole is in the middle of an ocean, wouldn t that be a bit unusual?
    Message 1 of 12 , Sep 12, 2002
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In methanehydrateclub@y..., foryeshua1@j... wrote:
      > B1, The answer that I have is that the very first evidence of the SE
      > that I found was that as a pilot flew over the North pole he had a
      > magnetic compass that spun when he went over rocks that were still not
      > covered by ice, which was surprising to him because of the much snow
      that
      > had fallen in the area. (I think this snow didn't cover the rocks
      because
      > the SE flow resisted its falling upon them.) Applying the right hand
      > rule to the motion of the compass needle (a trick of remembering which
      > way the needle spun as I watched his large six inch needle spin) shows
      > that a current is indeed going out of the North Pole. Walter
      >

      Rocks at the North Pole?? Seeing as how the North Pole is in the
      middle of an ocean, wouldn't that be a bit unusual?
    • foryeshua1@juno.com
      David, The North pole before it started to melt was a triangle shape because there were three main conductors of SE there on the corners of the pole area.
      Message 2 of 12 , Sep 13, 2002
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        David, The North pole before it started to melt was a triangle shape
        because there were three main conductors of SE there on the corners of
        the pole area. Before the short smaller poles were put in around the
        North pole area to keep the SE from seeking and finding a new place to
        shift the Rotating position of the North pole to, the pole was triangle
        because of these three naturally SE conductive places. (btw the pole is
        now melting because the shifting of the SE to several conductive spots
        causes each pole to get cold while the SE is there but because it doesn't
        stay there long enough, the ice melts when the SE goes to the next pole.
        This is why we need one pole in the center to keep the pole from melting,
        to be able to control the speed of earth's rotation, and to possibly
        control the orbital path of our earth.) Our earth was shifting to each
        of these three points as it rotated thus its shape. These areas are
        somewhat mountainous with rocks. When I said the pilot was over the North
        Pole I was not talking about the Geocentric North. The center is an
        ocean, and if we were to drill a large enough hole and put in a conductor
        to be the ground that it would need to be with a controllable switch, we
        would have to do it from a platform. Keeping it insulated from the SE
        from breaking through upon the drilling rig before it is all set up to
        operate might be a problem unless an insulating dome down into the sea is
        covering them.
        This answer leaves a lot of holes. If interested you might
        consult http//www.vorbitz.com/electrojet// . Thank you for your
        question. Oh btw. I appreciate your "No problem" but I do not know what
        it is specifically referring to. Thanks anyway. Walter
        On Thu, 12 Sep 2002 20:10:51 -0000 "David" <b1blancer1@...>
        writes:
        --- In methanehydrateclub@y..., foryeshua1@j... wrote:
        > B1, The answer that I have is that the very first evidence of the SE
        > that I found was that as a pilot flew over the North pole he had a
        > magnetic compass that spun when he went over rocks that were still not
        > covered by ice, which was surprising to him because of the much snow
        that
        > had fallen in the area. (I think this snow didn't cover the rocks
        because
        > the SE flow resisted its falling upon them.) Applying the right hand
        > rule to the motion of the compass needle (a trick of remembering which
        > way the needle spun as I watched his large six inch needle spin) shows
        > that a current is indeed going out of the North Pole. Walter
        >

        Rocks at the North Pole?? Seeing as how the North Pole is in the
        middle of an ocean, wouldn't that be a bit unusual?



        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
        ADVERTISEMENT




        To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        methanehydrateclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • David
        First of all, let me address the rocks incident you referred to. I don t think that s its all that unusual for a megnetic compass to deviate or even spin
        Message 3 of 12 , Sep 13, 2002
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          First of all, let me address the rocks incident you referred to. I
          don't think that's its all that unusual for a megnetic compass to
          deviate or even spin around when in the presence of magnetic rocks. I
          can show you on aeronautical navigation charts where the issue
          warnings that state that magnetic compass readings will be inaccurate.
          If the pilot's compass that you mention did indeed spin around, then
          I would suggest that it was either because he was in the presence of
          magnetic rocks, or very close to the magnetic pole itself. I imagine
          a compass would do all kinds of weird things when in direct proximity
          to the magnetic pole.

          Now as far as Earth rotation, why is it necessary to have some
          external force causing it? Newton's first law of motion says that an
          object in motion will remain in motion. You talk about some kind of
          artificial magnetic poles being installed. Do you have any evidence
          of that?

          Sorry, but the whole SE idea makes no sense at all to me.
        • foryeshua1@juno.com
          David, The poles in place I mentioned is that I found in the news a pole in place somewhere in Alaska I believe,which was left sticking up above ground.
          Message 4 of 12 , Sep 14, 2002
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            David, The poles in place I mentioned is that I found in the news a
            pole in place somewhere in Alaska I believe,which was left sticking up
            above ground. When I saw that the aurora was shifting wildly around the
            North pole area I knew that the only way it could do that is if the
            source of the SE were coming from that area and being there to be lit up.
            That meant many more in place poles.
            As far as being close to the magnetic pole, it wasn't. It was
            over the proximity of the geocentric North pole. The three areas
            mentioned before on the corners of the triangle North ice cap were the
            most likely places. The approximate place of the North Mangnetic pole at
            that time was somewhere down toward Canada. Walter

            On Sat, 14 Sep 2002 04:45:48 -0000 "David" <b1blancer1@...>
            writes:
            First of all, let me address the rocks incident you referred to. I
            don't think that's its all that unusual for a megnetic compass to
            deviate or even spin around when in the presence of magnetic rocks. I
            can show you on aeronautical navigation charts where the issue
            warnings that state that magnetic compass readings will be inaccurate.
            If the pilot's compass that you mention did indeed spin around, then
            I would suggest that it was either because he was in the presence of
            magnetic rocks, or very close to the magnetic pole itself. I imagine
            a compass would do all kinds of weird things when in direct proximity
            to the magnetic pole.

            Now as far as Earth rotation, why is it necessary to have some
            external force causing it? Newton's first law of motion says that an
            object in motion will remain in motion. You talk about some kind of
            artificial magnetic poles being installed. Do you have any evidence
            of that?

            Sorry, but the whole SE idea makes no sense at all to me.



            Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
            ADVERTISEMENT




            To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            methanehydrateclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.