On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 14:14:44 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>On Jun 18, 9:52 am, Kurgan Gringioni <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Jun 18, 7:02 am, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> > On Jun 17, 9:09 pm, Kurgan Gringioni <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Jun 17, 7:02 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > So tell me - when he reported that the north star bore in exactly the
>> > > > opposite direction of the compass and that there was no ice - what do you
>> > > > suppose that meant?
>>
>> > > As always, you're a goddamm idiot. The magnetic pole and the axis of
>> > > rotation of the earth are not one and the same.
>>
>> > Now if you only had the ability to think beside read, perhaps one
>> > could augment the other. But that's probably a dream in your case.
>>
>> Jackass -
>>
>> Right now the magnetic pole and the axis of rotation differ by eleven
>> degrees but in the past it's been much greater.
>
>Ahem, 11 degrees of WHAT?
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> It seems unlikely that Polo actually used a magnetic
> compass for navigation or introduced it to Europe.
> The Chinese had invented it by then but references to
> its use for navigation postdate Marco Polo. Kunich,
> perhaps you could point out where Polo mentions a
> compass in his works:
> http://www.gutenberg.org/browse/authors/p#a3613
Since you don't remember the conversation let's go back over it. Originally
I confused two books and said Marco Polo instead of Zheng He (I think). But
you knuckleheads can only remember the mistake and not the corrections. But
that's all well and fine since you don't have any problem arguing that it
was never possible to get between the north pole and the magnetic north pole
and not find ice.
On Jun 18, 2:14 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Jun 18, 9:52 am, Kurgan Gringioni <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 18, 7:02 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 17, 9:09 pm, Kurgan Gringioni <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 17, 7:02 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> > > > > So tell me - when he reported that the north star bore in exactly the
> > > > > opposite direction of the compass and that there was no ice - what do you
> > > > > suppose that meant?
>
> > > > As always, you're a goddamm idiot. The magnetic pole and the axis of
> > > > rotation of the earth are not one and the same.
>
> > > Now if you only had the ability to think beside read, perhaps one
> > > could augment the other. But that's probably a dream in your case.
>
> > Jackass -
>
> > Right now the magnetic pole and the axis of rotation differ by eleven
> > degrees but in the past it's been much greater.
>
> Ahem, 11 degrees of WHAT
Dumbass -
Eleven degrees of lattitude.
The reason for the variation is that the magnetic field of our
particular planet is caused by the molten iron core at the center.
Since it is molten it doesn't move in lockstep with the 'solid' outer
plates although the core is affected by them. You should just read the
nasa.gov sites I referred you to on the subject instead of playing
stupid.
Ahem, so you're telling us that 79 Degrees north has NEVER been ice free?
Maybe you ought to tell that to the people of Spitzbergen.
> The reason for the variation is that the magnetic field of our
> particular planet is caused by the molten iron core at the center.
> Since it is molten it doesn't move in lockstep with the 'solid' outer
> plates although the core is affected by them. You should just read the
> nasa.gov sites I referred you to on the subject instead of playing
> stupid.
How nice of you to be an expert at something that has never been
satisfactorily explained by science.
On Jun 18, 9:52 am, Kurgan Gringioni <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jun 18, 7:02 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > On Jun 17, 9:09 pm, Kurgan Gringioni <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 17, 7:02 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> > > > So tell me - when he reported that the north star bore in exactly the
> > > > opposite direction of the compass and that there was no ice - what do you
> > > > suppose that meant?
>
> > > As always, you're a goddamm idiot. The magnetic pole and the axis of
> > > rotation of the earth are not one and the same.
>
> > Now if you only had the ability to think beside read, perhaps one
> > could augment the other. But that's probably a dream in your case.
>
> Jackass -
>
> Right now the magnetic pole and the axis of rotation differ by eleven
> degrees but in the past it's been much greater.
11 deg? Where?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_North_Pole
The direction in which a compass needle points is known as magnetic
north. In general, this is not exactly the direction of the North
Magnetic Pole (or of any other consistent location). Instead, the
compass aligns itself to the local geomagnetic field, which varies in
a complex manner over the Earth's surface, as well as over time.
On Jun 18, 5:21 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > On Jun 18, 2:14 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >> Ahem, 11 degrees of WHAT
>
> > Eleven degrees of lattitude.
>
> Ahem, so you're telling us that 79 Degrees north has NEVER been ice free?
> Maybe you ought to tell that to the people of Spitzbergen.
On Jun 18, 7:16 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > It seems unlikely that Polo actually used a magnetic
> > compass for navigation or introduced it to Europe.
> > The Chinese had invented it by then but references to
> > its use for navigation postdate Marco Polo. Kunich,
> > perhaps you could point out where Polo mentions a
> > compass in his works:
> > http://www.gutenberg.org/browse/authors/p#a3613
>
> Since you don't remember the conversation let's go back over it. Originally
> I confused two books and said Marco Polo instead of Zheng He (I think). But
> you knuckleheads can only remember the mistake and not the corrections.
dumbass,
to admit that you were confused and wrong is something i didn't think
i'd ever see,
let us recognize this thread for the watershed moment that it is.
"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Jun 18, 5:21 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> "Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> > On Jun 18, 2:14 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> >> Ahem, 11 degrees of WHAT
>>
>> > Eleven degrees of lattitude.
>>
>> Ahem, so you're telling us that 79 Degrees north has NEVER been ice free?
>> Maybe you ought to tell that to the people of Spitzbergen.
>
> And you wonder why I can't stand you.
Not at all. Ever since you first came here you've been adverse to the truth.
Smart assing away your life on an inheritance seems to have turned you from
a possible winner to a last place loser dedicated to proving that last is
best.
On Jun 18, 9:21 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > On Jun 18, 5:21 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> >> "Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >>news:[email protected]...
>
> >> > On Jun 18, 2:14 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >> >> Ahem, 11 degrees of WHAT
>
> >> > Eleven degrees of lattitude.
>
> >> Ahem, so you're telling us that 79 Degrees north has NEVER been ice free?
> >> Maybe you ought to tell that to the people of Spitzbergen.
>
> > And you wonder why I can't stand you.
>
> Not at all. Ever since you first came here you've been adverse to the truth.
This truth?
On Feb 10, 4:48 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in
response to Robert Chung:
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nospl...
>
> "This week, I'll show how the UN undervalued the sun's effects on historical
> and contemporary climate, slashed the natural greenhouse effect, overstated
> the past century's temperature increase, repealed a fundamental law of
> physics and tripled the man-made greenhouse effect."
>
> "Scores of scientific papers show that the medieval warm period was real,
> global and up to 3C warmer than now. Then, there were no glaciers in the
> tropical Andes: today they're there. There were Viking farms in Greenland:
> now they're under permafrost. There was little ice at theNorthPole: a
> Chinese naval squadron sailed right round the Arctic in 1421 and found
> none."
>
> Though I'm quite sure that you're a lot more educated about these things.
[email protected] wrote:
> to admit that you were confused and wrong is something i didn't think
> i'd ever see,
>
> let us recognize this thread for the watershed moment that it is.
