Can we control the temperature of Earth?

[Reality Check]

No not at all
As I wrote: tries to place an iron beam in the earth. It will adapt and contribute to the Earth, now turn it around, and again you see it will adapt and contribute to the earth's MF.
You problem is that you have no experience by experimenting with magnetic field, and probably never had had a magnetometer in you hands.

The orientation of a paramagnetic material in an external magnetic field does not matter. The external field induces a magnetic field in the material. That magnetic field adds to the external field.
I learned this in undergraduate physics when I did all those experiments with magnets.
I learned this when I was a teaching assistant teaching undergraduates to do those experiments with magnets.

Difference magnetic strengths from the continents can push MNP where these “want”.
When the global magnetic field splits a part and several magnetic “alliances” appears, these can (and will) “fight each other” or integrate with each other, - magnetic chaos will rules, and everything can happen. – Hence the magnetic polarity can flip one or several time relative fast can flip.

Remember magnetic chaos rules when the field is VERY weak, (few percent of it’s average strength) - to believe that electromagnetic circuit controls such weak magnetic chaos, is completely naïve.
When the magnetic chaos rules and the field is weak, almost like the field on mars, it easy to see that there really are no need for electromagnetism, and exactly in these weak period magnetic flips happens.

The rest is gibberish.

 

[Bjarne]

Shortly spoken my friend
In the coming years you too will discover it will be colder.
The so called "Global Warming" is over.
King winter will return, and we will clearly see that there is a clear connection / coincidence between solar wind and global temperatures.
We will also understand that is total nuts (impossible) even to try to "adapt” this facts with the nuts geo dynamo speculation.
This mean you have 1 shot left in the gun, my dear, and this is ferro-magnetism.
20 million animals (included cows) have already discovered this fact.
4 million died (in Mongolia) already this winter, - 16 million more is expected to die this winter (because of is very cold).
The east coast of USA is freezing, here in Europe too and Russia and China is also no exception.

Face it my friend. In the coming years we have to through a lot of creeds over board.

 

[MRC_Hans]

You problem is that you have no experience by experimenting with magnetic field, and probably never had had a magnetometer in you hands.

I have Bjarne. I'm a professional. I say you are totally, completely, and ridiculously wrong, and that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

I only keep reading your posts because they are funny.

Hans

 

[lomiller]

If a man doesn’t want to see, then he doesn’t want to see.
When a stubborn cow doesn’t want to walk, then it don't want to walk.

 

[Bjarne]

I have Bjarne. I'm a professional.

Yehh Yehh … but don’t forget cows have bigger brain than you.

I say you are totally, completely, and ridiculously wrong, and that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
I only keep reading your posts because they are funny.

Oohh
I am sure you will change you mind when you in the coming years discover that the winter we have now on the Northern hemisphere is not an exception, but properly the start of a new cold period, (nobody can predict how long it will last) .

Tell me how many meter snow and cold winter do you need to get the incoherent geo-crap out of your brain? (And replace it with down to Earth coherent ferro facts.) ?

Funny………

Really ?
So you like winter...(?)
The Sun is not so active like it "should" right now.
Many right brained people, included serious (down to earth) scientist (and don’t forget the cows) (and most of all don’t forget historic recorded facts) all points to the fact that the Suns activity is connected with temperature on Earth.

Still sleeping?
All right its good to be refreshed.
Just tell me when you wake up from the geo-hypnosis....

Anyway, - tell me, - would you still believe in the geo-creeds the day it is experimental proven that ferro-magnetic collision combined with head at the collision point, can and will bend magnetic power lines?

How deluded would you feel you self when a simple kitchen table experiment could turn over the only geo argument you have, (to prevent the geo-load from turning over). ?
I guess you would ignored it and still be a geo-beliver right ?

Or would you (really) the day the last argument is smashed be able to say : goodby dear geo-dynamo?

 

[Reality Check]

An abysmal lack of physics and mathematics on his crank web page

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.
   It has even stopped without any effects on the MF.
3. The crust varies in thickness - the MF does not correlate
   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.
4. 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.
5. Bjarne is ignorant that heat decreases the strength of ferromagnets

And the next one:
Bjarne links to a page on his crank web site. That page is just pretty pictures and his delusions about physics, e.g. that "heat flow" somehow does something to magnetic fields.
A real scientific theory will include things like matches to actual data and a model that allows predictions to be made.

Note that I do not call his web site "crank" without any reason, e.g.

• Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
  According to that web site physical quantities can be arbitrarily assigned units of measurement, e.g. an equation that returns numbers (no units) can be given units of m/s^2 or coulombs or kilograms just because Bjarne wants it to return acceleration or charge or mass.
  He ignorantly gives the Lorentz factor - 1 (a number) the units of acceleration.
• Energy is not conserved in Bjarne's universe!
  His creation of "kinetic resistance" ensures that energy is never conserved.

Or read the The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his three threads post here.

 

[Reality Check]

Zonal swishing at the Earth's core: Japanese simulation sheds new light on the Earth's magnetic field

 

[Bjarne]

double

 

[Bjarne]

------
Last time my freind

The magnetic poles have been measured to be ~5000 kilometers below the surface of the Earth.

Creeds.
You can’t know if ferro-magnetic collision + heat gives the same result, before you have measured.

The solar wind does not change the overall strength of the Earth's MF.

We know it does.
Only a question of magnetic susceptibility.
We have measured in few decades.
This is far from enough to get a perfect picture. You know (or should) know that too.
The Earth is affected, and solar storms do increase the MF of the Earth, but right now the Earth can’t keep these contribution.
This will change now, - for the first time in the past 2500 years, - because MNP is now entering a huge positive thermal / magnetic anomaly in the Arctic Ocean.,
This claim is based on 10.000 years paleo magnetic history..

It has even stopped without any effects on the MF.

We know the solar wind / storms affects the MF of the Earth.
The Earth is a ferro-magnet that must be affected by solar wind that also carries strong magnetic fields. - And it does.
What is you source for that claiming the opposite ?

The crust varies in thickness - the MF does not correlate

It’s irrelevant so long you ignore thermal heat flow in the crust is a much more important factor when it comes to the ability for global adaption / integration.

MF reversals are not explained by Bjarne's idea

Liar
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5608384&postcount=139ier

Bjarne is ignorant that heat decreases the strength of ferromagnets

Liar
Read the post above, I have mentioned that many times.
BUT heat flow (temperature variation) in the crust makes is possible for the field to relocate and adapt much more perfect to the global field.

Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)

Crap
The equation you talk about is not unit-less, you are inserting both c as well as a certain speed.
Doesn’t matter how you look at this: You can’t deny the equation we speak about reflect; resistance against motion, and hence “negative velocity” .
I have calculated the speed of that “negative velocity” .
If this should be wrong I have asked you 117 times to prove it, simply shows the correct value (resistance / negative velocity)with unit m/s.
BUT YOU CANT NOT
Any cow that have read your post know this.
Ergo I am right so long you haven’t corrected my calculation and shown the correct negative velocity.

Notice we talk about (to avoid further stupidity) the velocity it would have been if there was no increasing resistance.
It is simple cow math my friend, - so why does it seems you have mysophobia for that part, and gives away to go into a deeper debate ?.
I mean it is easy just to say everything is wrong without at least showing the correct result.
Lets try to keep it simple:
If you know a willing cow walk 7 km per hours.
How much resistance (km/hour) does a stubborn (that resist to be dragged) express ?
And now to the more advances math.
How much negative speed will a not running stubborn cow have compared to a cow that runs 14 km/h. ? (when dragged)
Yes we can say because the cow don’t run it have no motion. !!
But the point is that the cows resists OK?
And the question is therefore how much motion the cows would have when they did not resist. ?
I think lets first agree on the cow logic level and then let see if we both agree.
Next we can then jump to a more advances stage.
Do you understand what I mean?
Now let say my calculation says the running cow resist (negative velocity) = 14 km/h and you believe it is 10 (without unit).
Lets put our effort together and try so hard we can to figure out where the problem is OK.
Have you got the point?

Energy is not conserved in Bjarne's universe!

You don’t know WHY you have resistance against motion or anything about how and why speed converts into mass.
So don’t be so “smart” King Carrot, and don’t accused other (through stones) for not knowing this process when it is a FACT you live in a glass house, and are completely ignorant.

I have opposite to you a beautiful explanation that you can’t beat:
You know that matter and space is connected.
You know that any body affects the whole Universe. (deforms space around it)
Hence you also know that when you moves that body you disturbs the whole universe.
This is why you have resistance.
There is a price to pay for disturbing the universe unimportant if a body is accelerating or moves with constant speed.
This is really cow logical simple.
I honestly can’t understand that you can't / don't want to get it in on the scoreboard.
So please do not repeat you accusation 117 times more.. -117 time is enough, don't you think ?
You tactic remind me of brainwash. - I mean if a lie is repeated 117 times, - people begin to believe it is true.
------

 

[Reality Check]

------
Last time my freind

Creeds.
You can’t know if ferro-magnetic collision + heat gives the same result, before you have measured.
...snipped rant...------

Last time my friend
You (Bjarne) can’t know if "ferro-magnetic collision + heat" gives any result because all you have is some vague ideas and pretty pictures.

The properties of ferromagnetic materials are well understood.
They often do not have any external magnetic field

The above would seem to suggest that every piece of ferromagnetic material should be magnetized, yet iron and other ferromagnets are often found in an unmagnetized state. The reason for this is that a bulk piece of ferromagnetic material is divided into many tiny magnetic domains (also known as Weiss domains). Within each domain, the spins are aligned, but (if the bulk material is "unmagnetized"), the spins of separate domains point in different directions and their magnetic fields cancel out, so the object has no net large scale magnetic field.

If they have a magnetic field then that MF that decreases a little with increasing temerature until the Curie temperature where they become paramagnetic.
Increasing the temperature does not cause or allow their magnetic field to reverse polarity.

The physical facts are:

• We have measured the Earth's magnetic field for centuries.
• The current MF has the shape that would be caused by a bar magnet, i.e. north and south magnetic poles on the surface of the Earth connected by magnetic field lines. Modern measurements have shown that this MF is distorted by the solar wind far from the Earth's surface (the magnetosphere).
• Carl Friedrich Gauss used observations of the Earth's MF and the theory of magnetism to calculate the position of the actual north and south magnetic poles. Instead of being on the surface of the Earth they turned out to be ~5000 kilometers below.
  
  Gauss, J. C. F., Allgemeine Theorie des Erdmagnetismus: Resultate aus den Beobachtungen des magnetischen Vereins in Jahre 1838. 1838, Leipzig. 73. ("General Theory of Terrestrial Magnetism: Results from the observations of the magnetic Association in 1838").
  
  I will emphasis this: Science has known for 172 years that the poles of the magnet that generates the Earth's magnetic field are ~5000 kilometers below the surface of the Earth.

The dynamo theory scientifically explains this observation easily - the magnetic field is generated by currents in the Earth's core. It also explains the times that there are more than 1 pair of magnetic poles and the periodic reversing of the poles.

Your idea scientifically explains nothing at all.

 

[Reality Check]

------
Liar
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5608384&postcount=139ier

Liar
That is just a vague description of what you want to happen.

------
Liar
Read the post above, I have mentioned that many times.
BUT heat flow (temperature variation) in the crust makes is possible for the field to relocate and adapt much more perfect to the global field.

That is just a vague description of what you want to happen.

------
Crap
The equation you talk about is not unit-less, you are inserting both c as well as a certain speed.

Crap - your ignorance is astounding.

The Lorentz factor has the speed of light (c) and speed (u) in it. They are divided as shown below. As any high school student knows when you divide two physical quantities with the same units of measurement then you get a number. For example 100 meters divided by 50 meters is the number 2.

1. Beta below is a number.
2. FYI: 1 is a number too.
3. Subtracting a number from a number gives a number eye-poppi).
4. Taking the square root of a number is a number eye-poppi).
5. Dividing 1 by a number gives a number eye-poppi).
6. Therefore the Lorentz factor is a number eye-poppi).

Hopefully that is simple enough for you but I doubt it.

It is defined as:

where:

is the velocity in terms of the speed of light,
u is the velocity as observed in the reference frame where time t is measured
τ is the proper time,
and c is the speed of light.

And let us explore the consequences of being idiotic enough to ignore all science in the last 100 years. Let us make the Lorentz factor into an acceleration. What happens to special relativity where it is used a lot?
For example momentum and energy in SR are

Some simple high school dimensional analysis reveals that momentum is not longer momentum and energy is no longer energy.

In fact the dimensions of momentum and energy demand that the Lorentz factor be a number.

 

[Bjarne]

-----

Last time my friend
You (Bjarne) can’t know if "ferro-magnetic collision + heat" gives any result because all you have is some vague ideas and pretty pictures.

I have many good reasons to believe so.
Not one single phenomena connected to the Earth MF contradict with a ferro-magnetic model.
And this is VERY important before at all accepting any thesis.
Furthermore:
Why do I claims that; > heat + ferro magnetic collision = bended MF power lines.
Because we know that something happens with magnetism when heated up, but not exactly why.
And we also know even the weak field of the Earth determinate ferro-magnetic power lines to adapt.
We certainly have more to learn.
But from here,- and to the incoherent geo-magnetic model, (that contradict reality) is simply just too much fantasy.
It’s so evidently, that this idea leads to nowhere except out in the sump.
Cow knows when the ice gets too thin. We can learn from them before crowds get too ridiculously.

The properties of ferromagnetic materials are well understood.

But this doesn’t mean that we not have more to learn. (MF collision + heat) As well as more experiments to execute.

Increasing the temperature does not cause or allow their magnetic field to reverse polarity.

I never said that, but rather that ferromagnetism hundred degrees hot and still below curie,
better can adapt and without any magnetic resistance.
I am sure it where the secret cow is buried.

The physical facts are:
We have measured the Earth's magnetic field for centuries.
The current MF has the shape that would be caused by a bar magnet……….
Etc…………………………………

Don’t blind you self with what we know, but rather try to open you eyes and see how the strange puzzle can fit with pieces that today not at all fit anywhere.. except to a ferromagnetic model.
Try to allow you self use you right brains half. : maybe you hate it. I hate to use my left.
BUT time for half brained science is over.
Sooner or later time must come where we are force to get the puzzle together.
For example if Washington (and the rest of the Northern hemisphere) every winter gets 1 or 2 meter snow and bigger and bigger freeze, parallel to that the Suns activity is lower than the past century.

Liar
That is just a vague description of what you want to happen.

No this is built on 10.000 years paleo magnetic data, that shows that the placement of MNP is very important.

The Lorentz factor has the speed of light (c) and speed (u) in it. They are divided as shown below. As any high school student knows when you divide two physical quantities with the same units of measurement then you get a number. For example 100 meters divided by 50 meters is the number 2.

Get to the point
Let say you travel 10.000 m/s .
How much "negative velocity" is the increasing resistance against motion causing?
The negative velocity MUST be proportional to mass and KE increase.
Therefore you MUST agree that you MUST use the same transformation factor?
And that’s it.
No more bla bla irrelevant talk...get to the point calculate it my friend and let me know WITH unit my friend. ...and of course how you did the calculation.
But I geusss you will never do the calculation right ?
Is it because you can not ?
Or because you don't like to show you are a loser. ?
-----

 

[Reality Check]

-----
I have many good reasons to believe so.
Not one single phenomena connected to the Earth MF contradict with a ferro-magnetic model.

The basic fact that the Earth's magnetic field originates 5000 km below the surface of the Earth states that any idea of a ferro-magnetic crust model is unphysical and ridiculous.

Because we know that something happens with magnetism when heated up, but not exactly why.

You don't.
Science does.
High school student do: What affects the strength of a magnet?
When you heat a ferromagnet it loses strength gradually up to the Curie temperature. If I remember my undergrad electromagnetism courses correctly, it is because there is a tendency for magnetic dipoles to antialign. This is a QM effect analogous to the Fermi exclustion principle. Extra thermal energy allwos magneic domains to flip to anti-align and so the magnet strength declines with increasing heat.

And we also know even the weak field of the Earth determinate ferro-magnetic power lines to adapt.

Gibberish.

.
But from here,- and to the incoherent geo-magnetic model, (that contradict reality) is simply just too much fantasy.
[/quoyte]
Your ignorance of the dynamo model does not mean that it contradicts reality. It scientifically predicts all of the known features of the Earth's MF.

I never said that, but rather that ferromagnetism hundred degrees hot and still below curie,
better can adapt and without any magnetic resistance.

A ferromagnet "hundred degrees hot and still below curie" better adapts to what?
How does it adapt?
If you are thinking about an external magnetic field than where does coercive magnetic field come from and what it its strength in Oersted?

A paramagnet easily "adapts" to an external magnetic field.
A ferromagnet demagnetizes when exposed to very strong magnetic fields 1000's of times stronger than the Earth's MF).

Get to the point
...nipped gibberish...
-----

The point is your ignorance of the basics of physics and mathematics:

• The Lorentz factor (γ) is a number.
• (γ - 1) is a number.
• It is ignorant to state that (γ - 1) is an acceleration.
• It is delusional to continue to state that (γ - 1) is an acceleration after you have been shown what high school students learn every day.

 

[Reality Check]

What magnetic field is predicted by a ferromagnetic crust model

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.
   It has even stopped without any effects on the MF.
3. The crust varies in thickness - the MF does not correlate
   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.
4. 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.
5. Bjarne is ignorant that heat decreases the strength of ferromagnets
   And that is all that happens until the Curie temperature where they become paramagnetic.
6. An abysmal lack of physics and mathematics on his crank web page.

And the next one is a question:
Bjarne,

What magnetic field is predicted by a ferromagnetic crust model?
Please show all of your working.


My guess is that there are no magnetic poles as physically observed from this model. All your model can do is produce a fixed magnetic field. I doubt that your model can even produce poles except by placing a clump of ferromagnetic material there. That has the flaw that the poles move - the NMP by 64 km per year in 2009. That means you either have to

1. Move the clumps of material (but tectonic o=movement is centimeters per year) or
2. Reverse the magnetic field in adjoining clumps which is impossible for ferromagnets or
3. Something else like your usual vague "things do stuff and that does what I want"?

P.S.
History of Magnetics

The question of why the Earth has a magnetic field was one of the first to be asked in the arena of magnetic research and, perhaps even today does not remain fully understood. In De Magnete, William Gilbert, later the doctor of Queen Elizateth, identified that the Earth's magnetic field had its origin from inside the Earth. He proposed that their was a lodestone with a permanent magnetic field associated with it at the center of the Earth. Later, in the seventeenth century, Rene Descartes proposed that the Earth's magnetism was channelled in one-way ducts through the Earth that exited and entered at the North and South poles. These theories are no longer accepted however. We now know that rocks aren't strongly enough magnetized to account for the observed geomagnetic field and that below depth of about 30 km, rocks are so hot that they are above their Curie temperature and are nonmagnetic. Another difficulty with these theories is that the Earth's magnetic field varies over time scales from about a decade to 10,000 years.

(my emphasis)
Guess what the next flaw in your idea in the list will be?

 

[Pixel42]

In the coming years you too will discover it will be colder.
The so called "Global Warming" is over.[snip] 4 million died (in Mongolia) already this winter, - 16 million more is expected to die this winter (because of is very cold).
The east coast of USA is freezing, here in Europe too and Russia and China is also no exception.

And yet globally last month was the warmest January in the satellite record:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/02/january-2010-warmest-on-record.shtml

Of interest was the Northern hemisphere which rose sharply on this measure from December's levels - and gives a graphic illustration that despite many populated areas of the northern Hemisphere experiencing a cold winter - other areas were much warmer than average.

 

[Leviath]

Bjarne,now you're in the running for two Nobel prizes,one for this and one for your sterling work on bended space.I look forward to the day that you are hailed as the greatest scientist of all time.

Just wait. Bjarne can also debunk evolution and plate tectonics. Two more Nobel prizes right there.

 

[Reality Check]

I have found a fuller explanation of the work of Gauss and others to measure the Earth's magnetic field:
A Millennium of Geomagnetism 4. Gauss and Faraday -- Magnetic Surveys and Dynamo Concepts

 

[MRC_Hans]

-I have many good reasons to believe so.

The main reason being that, for some strange reason, you dearly want it to be so.

Not one single phenomena connected to the Earth MF contradict with a ferro-magnetic model.

Factually wrong. Several observed phenomenon contradict it. Most importantly, of course, the fact that we can measure that the magnetic field originates below the crust. However, many other observation contradict it; the distribution of the magnet field, the fact that we have polar reversals, etc.

And this is VERY important before at all accepting any thesis.

So the ferromagnetic thesis falls. Or rather, it fell, over a century ago.

Furthermore:
Why do I claims that; > heat + ferro magnetic collision = bended MF power lines.

You claim that because even you can see that otherwise your idea is completely ridiculous.

Because we know that something happens with magnetism when heated up, but not exactly why.

Yes, we know what happens to magnetism in the presence of heat. And it is not bended magnet lines.

But this doesn’t mean that we not have more to learn. (MF collision + heat) As well as more experiments to execute.

Why don't you DO those experiments, then? Your gravity experiment never happened, your very simple magnetic experiment has not been done.What are you waiting for? Are you afraid that you will find you are wrong?

Stop talking, Bjarne, middle name Proof, and prove it.

Get to the point
Let say you travel 10.000 m/s .
How much "negative velocity" is the increasing resistance against motion causing?

There is no such thing as negative velocity. If a moving object encounters resistance, it will loose energy and have a negative acceleration.

However, there is no such thing as resistance against motion. That is just a product of your imagination.

The negative velocity MUST be proportional to mass and KE increase.
Therefore you MUST agree that you MUST use the same transformation factor?

No.

And that’s it.
No more bla bla irrelevant talk...get to the point calculate it my friend and let me know WITH unit my friend. ...and of course how you did the calculation.

Bjarne, it is your idea, you do the calculation.

But I geusss you will never do the calculation right ?
Is it because you can not ?

It is because nobody can make calculation about something that exists only in your imagination. If you could specify exactly how your imaginative resistance to motion was supposed to function, one might make calculations about how it would affect things, but since you can't even express that......

Hans

 

[dafydd]

Just wait. Bjarne can also debunk evolution and plate tectonics. Two more Nobel prizes right there.

He's going to need a bigger shelf to hold them all.

 

[Bjarne]

RC
The basic fact that the Earth's magnetic field originates 5000 km below the ………

The fact that you have 1 shot in you gun, but this doesn’t prove that you will hit the cow.

RC
Your ignorance of the dynamo model does not mean that it contradicts reality. It scientifically predicts all of the known features of the Earth's MF.

I have mentioned several times, that there are a lot of facts that can’t be adapted to that speculation.
And that’s in fact a BIG problem that shows the idea is dead. (or should be) Just face it, it's dead...

RC
A paramagnet easily "adapts" to an external magnetic field.
And therefore a MF can avoid magnetic collision and be bended away from the magnetic poles.

We should execute experiments to figure out what happens in the magnetic collision point in a ball shaped magnetic ferro field, when heating up the magnetic collision point.
But science is one-eyed completely blinded by a nuts idea preventing them to se any coherent or even obviously contradiction.
Time will soon come where this old crap creed will turn over.

Let me again to ask you, would you honestly still believe in the geo-creeds when a experiments shows that heat can bend the magnetic lines outwards away from the magnetic poles in a way suitable to cheat a geo-blinded crowds to believe the MF “must” be caused by electromagnetic?

What I am really are asking you, the day you do not have one single argument to support the geo-speculation, will you still be a geo-believer ? – Or are the still some ferro-MF left in you brain ?

It’s simply too stupid that all efforts only follows a one-eyed geo-fixated creeds-mainstream, even though it is clear that a geo-speculation never will be able to comprehend the cause of several magnetic phenomena’s (facts), - we know should and must be able connect to the way the magnetic field works as a whole.

For example these fatc can’t be adapted to a geo-dynamo but only bal bla bla…..

• The fact that variation of the strength of the Earth magnetic field and global temperatures are coincident, - and that fits perfectly to a ferro-magnetic model, and a much better coherent overall understanding of much more.
• 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.

And worse at all, even though the worlds most stupid cow, wouldn’t ever even dream that is it’s possible to “connect” global temperature with the geo-speculation, simple because it is complete cow-logic impossible.
This infact contradict the goe-speculation even at cow-logic-level.
And hence bla bla bla is not the way further...
A ferro MF doesn’t have that cow-logic contradiction.

BECAUSE

1. The solar wind is a MF dynamo. We already know the solar wind have a “magnetic dynamo property” ( that isn’t fully understood) …
2. Svensmarks objective findings (experiments and data coincidence support that this is the road out of the darkness.

We are on the wrong track.
It is impossible to find 1 single cow on Earth that doesn’t agree.
Instead of using billion of USD on geo-speculation, - I suggest to use 100 USD on ferro-MF speculation.

Hans
Several observed phenomenon contradict it. Most importantly, of course, the fact that we can measure that the magnetic field originates below the crust.

Hence you should be more carefully to CLAIM that the cause of the Earth MF is geo-dynamo driven.

Hans
Yes, we know what happens to magnetism in the presence of heat. And it is not bended magnet lines.

You haven't shown this by experiment. So have can you claim so ?
The fact is when you are heating up at the collision point. You MUST change the way the magnetic field flows into the field.
You can not just guess. Experiments (and many different) MUST be executed.

And yet globally last month was the warmest January in the satellite record:


The global-average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly rose to +0.72 deg. C in January 2010 on the UAH satellite measure. This is the warmest January in the 32-year satellite-based data record.

Off course when clouds and snow reflect the heat from the Sun. This demonstrate that at the surface the heat is "gone".

Why don't you DO those experiments, then? Your gravity experiment never happened, your very simple magnetic experiment has not been done.
What are you waiting for? Are you afraid that you will find you are wrong?

Gravity will be measured, it’s in progress.
Already test measurement have been done and is very promising.
But this forum is not the right place to publish first.
Regarding test of heat + MF collision I have suggested you to bet and /or participate, What are you waiting for ?

Hans
There is no such thing as negative velocity. If a moving object encounters resistance, it will loose energy and have a negative acceleration.

We have been though this 100 times
Off course there is increasing resistance, it so cow logic, and that’s why you must use increasing energy to get dismissing of speed.

This seems to be what you are doing.
And this doesn’t solve the fact that you haven’t understood what you are talking about as well as mysophobia…

Why this resistance
Why does gravity increase
Why increasing KE to get a object into motion.

EXPLAIN why, not just "Intertia" (or Ersplitten Ladenburmer") - WHY ?

Come on man, don't export human and cow logic to a fourth dimension junkyard.