Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Paulhoff]

Unless you tell him where, he will not be able to understand you.

Wait a minute, HE UNDERSTANDS.

Geezzzzz

Paul

 

[MRC_Hans]

I am NOT changing that fact, - BUT only explaining WHY it happens.

Correction, you are speculating.

Because matter sucks space, - if matter moves – and the rest of the story you have hear 117 times. – That’s why.

More speculation.

No one have claimed so.
The place where the sun winds begin is the MF "S", - so simple like that.

Yes, you have actually claimed that the sun has no south pole:

Amigo, it is discovered that the Suns MF NOT is a dipole.
The MF “S” is missing OK ?

Bjarne, one thing is that you specualte wildly, but TRY to keep your stories straight OK? Remember, this is the internet: Anybody can go bask and see exactly what you wrote, there is no running away.

Matter in motion = space in motion = a MF >> This is a simple consequence of the theory.

There is no theory. It is just a wild fantasy on your part. You have no documentation, and it is not even consistent.

Exactly and this is the problem with the discovery that is done.
I HAVE FOUND IT. – that you today not believe, will properly change.

Bjarne, you have found precisely nothing. You are just making idle speculations.

*snip*

- I guess....

*snip*

Just boiled it down to the essentials for you: Guesswork. You are guessing, and you are not even very good at it.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Wait a minute, HE UNDERSTANDS.

Geezzzzz

Paul

No, he doesn't.

Hans

 

[Paulhoff]

No, he doesn't.

Hans

Good, my universe is on track again.

Paul

 

[Bjarne]

Correction, you are speculating

Correction
I am

• Speculating
• Predicting
• Measuring
• Proving.

You are ONLY speculating too, but I wish people like you would keep both you feed on mother earth.
Because too often we see what poor speculation are sold as certain facts, to innocent student.
(For example dark matter)

Yes, you have actually claimed that the sun has no south pole:

Both Yes and no.
The South pole is not there we expect it to be, based on the (stupid) idea that the Sun is a dipole or a electromagnetic field.

Instead I have shown where the magnetic South really "are" to be found.
It all starts where the solar wind is blowing away from the Sun, this puts space in motion.
Which mean the fast outwards moving plasma, - is dragged space in its “wake” .

So soon as plasma is thrown out in space - magnetic South is born.

The solar wind, - drags space away from the sun, - this leaves a “space vacuum” behind, - and mean that space must flow to that vacuum as well. (Towards the Sun).
Naturally this end up as a closed circulation (of space) and mean that space must return to its starting point.

Bjarne, one thing is that you specualte wildly, but TRY to keep your stories straight OK? Remember, this is the internet: Anybody can go bask and see exactly what you wrote, there is no running away.

Yes the MSP is MISSING as I wrote. And I still mean thta it it is MISSING (the place we EXPECT it to be Amigo Hans).
BUT this does not mean it does not exist. Exactly if you not are we expect you to be, - it does not mean that you do no longer exist.

There is no theory. It is just a wild fantasy on your part. You have no documentation, and it is not even consistent.

I have a coherent a logical thesis, that fits to, and can explain all objective observation, - regarding several unexplained mysteries, - magnetic phenomena’s, in cosmos.
Furthermore I predict that the cause of these can further be confirmed due to a better understand of the simple fact; how space and matter is connected.
A such “connection” will be proven.
Furthermore the thesis fits and explains several other mysteries, such as the fact that we know that many planets not are where we expect these "should" have been.
For example: Jupiter should be further out in the Solar system. ( because it's atmosphere must have been created in a colder place)

And the thesis also fits with and can explain the unexplained mystery;

• why stars continues to fall to the black hole of a galaxy,
• why inner stars are to slow,
• why outer stars are too fast,
• what dark matter really is.

And must more, for example where did the water come from, this is still a big mystery, because even if it had come from comets, the problem is then where the Moon then came from.

I am 100% sure we do not live on a planet, but on a old moon, that long ago was orbiting the planet ; Titanic.

The Earth is created in a much colder atmosphere, - it was the Earth itself that brought the water here.

Imaging Jupiter (was so big) that the tidal force would drag it to the Sun, so like we see happens in many other solar systems.
Several million kilometers from the Sun Jupiter would begin to lose its moons; - these would not be affected by the tidal force, and hence begin to orbit the Sun, - and even escape further out again.

The faster rotation of the Sun (“centrifugal force” - due to the lost of Jupiter) would force these “small” moons further out again.
We are about to discover; that both resistance against motion is a fact, - as well as: the rotation of astronomic bodies can accelerate a orbiting body also is a fact.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13411-earths-rotation-may-account-for-wayward-spacecraft.html

When Jupiter was dragged towards the Sun, the first to escape would be the entire rocky rubble “moons” orbiting Jupiter.
These would end up as the asteroid belts orbiting the Sun.
Now take a look at the icy Moon ; Europe, -
http://www.spacetoday.org/images/SolSys/Jupiter/JIMO/JupiterMoonsSurfaces/EuropaSurface.jpg
Such place as this moon was created was also the birthplace for the Earth. And this is where the water comes from.

You have accuse me for speculation, but you have no better answer you self, of any of the mysteries that surrounds us. (except completely incoherent speculation)

So don’t be so self sure or arrogant, because in the most cases you are on very thin ice too and the only true answers you have are: (again and again): we don’t know. .

If you think what I claim is “too much” , - or if you cannot comprehend that much, - at least think about it.

Try for example try to tell me :

• What do you believe is the underlying cause of magnetism?
• Or tell me how do you believe matter and space in connected?
• Or how do you believe a grain of sand can affect the whole universe?
• Or where do you believe photon frequencies “disappears” over time
• Or where do you believe photons energy disappears over time?
• Or where do you believe the Suns MSP hide it self?
• Or when so you believe the next ice age will start ?
• Or why do you believe; it requires more and more energy to get a diminishing increase in speed. (Please do not repeat the empty superficial word “Inertia”)

The first step is always speculation right?
So don’t underestimate such first steep, - amigo Hans.
It all happens 300 years ago, - when Isaac Newton got a apple in his head, and he begun to speculate, strange why did that happen? - Why did it hit me?

Try to do a better speculation yourself? Amigo Hans.
You cannot reject my thought unless proving I am wrong. Or at least showing better speculation.
So far there is no evidence that my speculation is wrong.
It could be a serious framework.
It could be that this framework would take us further.
It could be this thesis would survey the: Jantelov
You never know……

 

[erlando]

You cannot reject my thought unless proving I am wrong. Or at least showing better speculation.

There's a teapot in orbit around Jupiter. Don't believe me? Prove me wrong then! Otherwise I'm right!

So far there is no evidence that my speculation is wrong.

(emphasis mine)

Speculation. That's the first thing I've seen you get right. Because your delusions are no more than the speculations of a crank who has fundamentally failed to understand even high school physics.

You have shown NO evidence, mathematically or otherwise, that your speculation is anywhere near right.

On the other hand there are mountains of evidence in support of the well-established scientific theories.

 

[steenkh]

So soon as plasma is thrown out in space - magnetic South is born.

Is this what happens in a bar magnet: matter is constantly thrown about in order to create a magnetic north and a magnetic south pole?

 

[Bjarne]

There's a teapot in orbit around Jupiter. Don't believe me? Prove me wrong then! Otherwise I'm right!

This is both illogical, incoherent with facts, and nothing at all points to such assumption. Hence it can in no way be comparable.

Is this what happens in a bar magnet: matter is constantly thrown about in order to create a magnetic north and a magnetic south pole?

In and around a ferro-magnet, - yes, - space is also moving.
Already we have good knowledge off how this is possible, based on particle spin.

To my opinion the particles interaction doesn’t balance each other completely in all materiel. There is probably more to learn (also for me) regarding this issue.

But yes the underlaying reality is; space in motion.

 

[erlando]

This is both illogical, incoherent with facts, and nothing at all points to such assumption. Hence it can in no way be comparable.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. So yes, it is 100% comparable. If you cannot come to terms with this you are more deluded than I thought.

It's even more to the point and more coherent than your deluded ramblings. It's also tenfold more mature than your ridiculous cow-analogies.

 

[erlando]

Already we have good knowledge off how this is possible, based on particle spin.

FAT DET DOG for helvede. "Spin" er en videnskabelig term, der bruges, så alle ved, hvad der snakkes om. Elementærpartiklerne roterer ikke. Det er noget forbandet vrøvl at påstå det.

 

[Bjarne]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. So yes, it is 100% comparable. If you cannot come to terms with this you are more deluded than I thought.
It's even more to the point and more coherent than your deluded ramblings. It's also tenfold more mature than your ridiculous cow-analogies.

Does coherence in your thesis mean anything to you ?
Does logic in your thesis mean anything to you ?
If so tell me about the logic and coherence ?

Or let's take a fast test ....

So who have put the teapot in to orbit?
UFO’s ?
Have the teapot been objective observed or measured that it is reality is a strange phenomena going on? –or is the phenomena only real in your own fantasy ?
Have science try to explain that phenomena ? (without succeeding ?)
Have similar teapot been observed elsewhere.
How will you prove your thesis?
What is the prediction of you thesis?

FAT DET DOG

What have you thesis with; FAT DOG, - to do ?
Do you believe also a fat dog is in orbit of Jupiter?
What else do you believe orbit Jupiter?

Are you a bad angry looser?

 

[Paulhoff]

"To my opinion".

This is a BIG SECRET, the universe doesn't give a damn about anyones opinion.

Science tries to found out what is, not what it wants.

Paul

 

[Bjarne]

"To my opinion".

This is a BIG SECRET, the universe doesn't give a damn about anyones opinion.

Science tries to found out what is, not what it wants.

Paul

It is also a question of surveying
We must learn to make used of the laws of nature, - so much we can..
Think for example of the energy supply situation.
Think about a new ice age must (statistical) come sooner as you are used to think about.
Think about the population explosion.
Think about the climatic heating, (doesn’t matter how misunderstood it is)..
But the BIG question, we will never understand. (Maybe cows does.)

 

[Reality Check]

More moo cow from Bjarne !
The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads

Bjarne is adding his unsupported assertions from out of thin air that have no physical or mathematical basis (delusions?) about magnetic fields to this thread.
So lurkers may be interested in his fantasy about the Earth's magnetic field in another thread. His easily debunked idea is that it is created by the crust and some unspecified interaction with the solar wind. The typical crackpot "the pretty pictures I draw are science" delusion abounds. As an aside:

See the pretty picture he has drawn for this thread where he basically lies about there not being a south pole in the picture by not labelling it!
I could give him some credit - other than the lie the first image in the picture is correct, i.e. it was observed that the Sun's south pole migrated to the equator so that it had 2 north poles and a south pole distributed around the equator. But then he has the physically impossible second image where the field lines do not go from the north pole to the south pole. Bad, mad, ignorant Bjarne !
​

The debunking of his MF idea is here Yet another fundemantally flawed idea from Bjarne:

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 !
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 .
3. Crustal magnetism is < 2% of the Earth's magnetism!
   Bjarne, if you have sources that contradict this please cite them.
   A deafening silence so far !
   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:

• An abysmal lack of physics and mathematics on his web page.
• He has a couple of other threads that also demonstrate his ignorance. There is a list of the fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his two threads. One item makes it clear that his knowledge is small:
  Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)

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
7. Where does the Sun's magnetic field come from?
   First Asked 23 March 2010
   The Sun does not have a ferromagnetic crust.
   The answer is an internal dynamo similar to Earth's

 

[Reality Check]

http://www.science27.com/images/Sun1.jpg
http://www.science27.com/images/Sun2.jpg

These two images show why the Sun never has a south pole.
Try to understand the solar wind is the dynamo of the Sun’s MF, that’s why there is no South Pole.

Just noticed this quite silly part of Bjarne's post. Hopefully it is his lack of English skills that makes this assertion totally weird. Otherwise the fact that the solar wind is emitted by the Sun and has no effect in the Sun's magnetic field means that he is implying

• The Sun has no MF or
• The Sun's MF is that of the solar wind.

Both of these ideas are really dumb since the Sun is observed to have a magnetic field that is different from that of the solar wind.

He also implies that there is never a South pole which is obviously wrong. What he probably means is that he has a fantasy about the source of the Sun's MF and in this fantasy the South pole can vanish.

Of course science has an actual scientific theory for the Sun's MF (The answer is an internal dynamo similar to Earth's) and in this scientific theory the Sun's poles can reverse, move around, multiply and essentially vanish when the poles reverse.

 

[erlando]

..babbling..

You really don't get it, do you? At this point I don't even think you're acting stupid. You're just not capable of understanding simple logic. You really ARE that stupid.

 

[tusenfem]

No I am not dump, I have good Cow IQ, this tells a LOT of the difference between you an me.

yeah, you're a cow I am a space physicist.

Amigo the hole point with the strength of the Suns MF and the solar winds and the Sun spots, is all: > MOTION of matter. – You can and MUST trace it back to that. THIS is the main point.

Dear Cow, yes the magnetic fields are created by motion of matter, specifically by motion of charged particles, however not in any sense that you seem to propose. Why don't you try to study how the solar magnetic field is generated in an introductory book on the Sun?

Amigo, it is discovered that the Suns MF NOT is a dipole.
The MF “S” is missing OK ?

Dear Cow, we (that is, all astronomers and space physicist) have know for a long long time that the Sun is not a simple dipole. And what on Earth is "the MF "S" is missing" supposed to mean? There was no magnetic south pole on the geographical south pole, so what, the solar magnetic field is NOT a simple dipole, we know that.

And please do not add words to any quotes you make that I have not said, that is very very bad attitude!

Exactly and this is the point.
How on Sun is that possible?
[qimg]http://www.science27.com/images/Sun1.jpg[/qimg]
The image above shows how it is possible.
Temporary the Sun creates 2 “N” – because the solar wind is the dynamo.

I could explain it to you, but your Cow IQ is not big enough to grasp it. It has to do with dipoles and quadrupoles and even higher-order poles. If the dipole disappears, then the quadrupole is the main source which has 2 north and 2 south poles. Why not look into a book about electrodynamics?

The rest of your drivel answers does not relate to my posts.

Now just go back to the field, eat some grass and chew it again and again and again.

 

[Bjarne]

He also implies that there is never a South pole which is obviously wrong.

Edit
Where we expect it to be. (now clarified 3 times above)
I consider to put that massage on a a bunker blaster especially to you RC, But I believe it is waste of money, I assume the concrete is more than 50 meter thick.

The MSP is created several places exactly where each load of solar wind starts. These are the places and these are the moments where space is set into motion.

Dear Cow, yes the magnetic fields are created by motion of matter, specifically by motion of charged particles, however not in any sense that you seem to propose. Why don't you try to study how the solar magnetic field is generated in an introductory book on the Sun?

Did you not forgot: Amen - ? (!)
We don’t know, and have no idea how that MF of the Sun is created.
The previous prevailing thesis is dead.

Dear Cow, we (that is, all astronomers and space physicist) have know for a long long time that the Sun is not a simple dipole.

And this is 100% crap, - you have believed so and so in long time, and this believe is contradicted by measurement, - by reality itself. FACE IT.

Richard Marsden, ESA's project scientist, explained:
"We expected the Sun to have a relatively simple magnetic field, such as the Earth's or that of a magnetised iron bar.
We thought we were going to find a local increase in the field's intensity.
But the probe did not detect any such thing and all the evidence so far suggests that the Sun has no south magnetic pole.
http://www.esa.int/esaCP/Pr_26_1994_p_EN.html

There was no magnetic south pole on the geographical south pole, so what, the solar magnetic field is NOT a simple dipole, we know that.

So long you don’t know where MSP is, all kind of blab la la blab is irrelevant, also the expression “NOT a simple dipole” - Find MSP amigo, that is what you need to do.

I could explain it to you, but your Cow IQ is not big enough to grasp it. It has to do with dipoles and quadrupoles and even higher-order poles. If the dipole disappears, then the quadrupole is the main source which has 2 north and 2 south poles. Why not look into a book about electrodynamics?

Crap from a to z, in this case a common MSP is twisted around the Sun. READ books and internet pages before you bla la to much.

 

[tusenfem]

Edit
Where we expect it to be. (now clarified 3 times above)
I consider to put that massage on a a bunker blaster especially to you RC, But I believe it is waste of money, I assume the concrete is more than 50 meter thick.

The MSP is created several places exactly where each load of solar wind starts. These are the places and these are the moments where space is set into motion.


Did you not forgot: Amen - ? (!)
We don’t know, and have no idea how that MF of the Sun is created.
The previous prevailing thesis is dead.


And this is 100% crap, - you have believed so and so in long time, and this believe is contradicted by measurement, - by reality itself. FACE IT.




So long you don’t know where MSP is, all kind of blab la la blab is irrelevant, also the expression “NOT a simple dipole” - Find MSP amigo, that is what you need to do.


Crap from a to z, in this case a common MSP is twisted around the Sun. READ books and internet pages before you bla la to much.

Oh my goodness, the Cow has farted again. This is hopeless.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Bjarne & the Solar Magnetic Field

He also implies that there is never a South pole which is obviously wrong.

Edit
Where we expect it to be. (now clarified 3 times above)

Wrong. The south (and north) magnetic poles are in fact right where they are expected to be and they are doing what they are expected to do. Stop making up pseudo-facts.

The MSP is created several places exactly where each load of solar wind starts.

Another pseudo-fact. No, that is not where the magnetic south pole (MSP) is. In fact, that is exactly where the MSP & MNP cannot ever be. Sunspot groups are known to be bipolar, in that they show spots of opposite polarity in coupled pairs. The spots host closed magnetic loops so that the solar plasma travels along the loop; first it goes up and then it comes down. the solar wind is known to emanate from "coronal holes", which are places where there are no sunspots. In those regions the solar magnetic field is disordered and chaotic, with "tiny" (on the scale of the sun) exposed areas of both polarities. So the solar wind does not flow from a region of preferred polarity, but rather a region of chaotic & mixed polarity. Only in the case of a flare or coronal mass ejection, where the aforementioned loops break, does a plasma wind flow from a sunspot area. it is not the normal solar wind, and there is no polarity preference here either, as the loop that breaks connects a magnetic south pole on one end and a magnetic north pole on the other.

We don’t know, and have no idea how that MF of the Sun is created. The previous prevailing thesis is dead.

100% Bjarne-Blarney (i.e., crap). Of course we have very good ideas about how the solar magnetic field is created. In fact, we know the physical process, and we know a lot about it. We don't know literally everything, but so what about that? We know enough about about the dynamo process, and magnetic field generation for both Earth & the sun, to be quite certain that we do know how the sun's magnetic field is generated. Maybe you don't know, but that's understandable, since knowledge seems to be something you like to avoid whenever possible. See the book Stellar Magnetism by Leon Mestel (Oxford University Press, 2003) for a general treatment of the subject in great detail. A broader picture of the interplay between fluid dynamics & magnetic fields can be found in the book Fluid Dynamics and Dynamos in Astrophysics and Geophysics (Soward, Jones, Hughes & Weiss editors; CRC Press, 2005). For something specific to the sun, see the book Solar Astrophysics by Peter Foukal (Wiley-VCH 2004; 2nd revised edition).

Richard Marsden, ESA's project scientist explained:
"We expected the sun to have a relatively simple magnetic field, such as the Earth's or that of a magentised iron bar. We thought we were going to find a local increase in the field's intensity. But the probe did not detect any such thing and all the evidence so far suggests that the sun has no magnetic south pole.
http://www.esa.int/esaCP/Pr_26_1994_p_EN.html

By relying on press releases instead of real science, you have managed to fool yourself into believing your own Bjarne-Blarney. In fact you have never even bothered, at any time, ever, to verify what real measurements really show about the solar magnetic poles. If you had bothered, then you would have realized (perhaps) that the absence of a south magnetic pole is a transient behavior of the sun, likely to repeat when the solar magnetic field reverse its polarity, as it does approximately every 11 years (give or take a year or two). your press release is dated 16 September 1994. But the magnetic south pole returned shortly after that press release came out. And then the same thing happened in 2000 (press release: A star with two north poles).

You have falsely interpreted the press release from 1994 to mean that the sun now (in 2010) has no magnetic south pole. You might even wrongly believe that it never had one, but in either case, you are dead wrong. The sun has a south magnetic pole, and a north magnetic pole too. But roughly every 11 years, they trade places, so sometimes the magnetic south pole is near the geographic north pole and vice-versa. The same thing happens with Earth's magnetic field, only on much longer and more chaotic time scales (see the book Reversals of the Earth's Magnetic Field by J.A. Jacobs (Cambridge University Press, 1994; 2nd edition) for a detailed study of the theory & observation of terrestrial magnetic field reversals).

The year 2000 event happened shortly before the solar magnetic field reversed in 2001. The Sep 1994 even happened in the tail end of solar cycle 22 (sep 1986 - May 1996), when the solar magnetic field was characteristically weak. The Ulysses spacecraft was the first opportunity to study the polar magnetic field of the sun, since it is very hard to see from Earth. While the phenomenon was certainly unexpected & surprising, it was also 16 years ago. it might have occurred to you to think that just maybe something had been learned about all this since then.

In short: the sun does have a magnetic south pole. You think it does not because you have misinterpreted a 16 year old press release.

You also misinterpret the press release through your own personal ignorance. It was well known by 1994 that the sun's magnetic field reverses with a full cycle of roughly 22 years (the 11-year sunspot cycle was discovered in 1843 by Samuel Schwabe, and the 22-year magnetic field cycle was laid out by George Ellery Hale (founder of Caltech & Mt. Wilson Observatory) and his collaborators in 1919 (Hale, Ellerman, Nicholson & Joy, 1919)). This was all well known to Marsden in 1994, so when he says "We expected the sun to have a relatively simple magnetic field ..." you must pay attention to the word "relatively". Nobody, including Marsden, expected to see a strictly dipole field; they all knew about the dynamo process and the vagaries of a fluctuating magnetic field. They also knew that the solar wind would distort the shape of the field (though they did not expect distortions as large as they found). I don't really know what you think they expected, but it would appear that you think they expected something that they did not in fact actually expect. You can't read a scientists mind by reading a press release, then or now.

Crap from a to z, in this case a common MSP is twisted around the Sun. READ books and internet pages before you bla la to much.

An excellent self-portrait. Everything you say is crap from a to z. And you should take your own advice and read a book now & then. I have a few suggestions already in this post. Stop with the blah-blah and stop with the pseudo-facts and stop with the crap and try to say something intelligent.

Oh my goodness, the Cow has farted again. This is hopeless.

OK, maybe it's not all crap. Maybe it's all fart. I am willing to stand corrected on that.