Re: Planet X vs Sun: NO Solar Reversals in Evidence
In Article <[email protected]> David Patternson wrote:
> Nancy Lieder <[email protected]> wrote:
>>- "The Earth's crust resists aligning with the giant comet,
>> being caught in a web of magnetic pulls from its immediate
>> neighborhood. In other words, the Earth's crust wants
>> to stay with the old, established, magnetic pull,"
>> THE SOLAR SYSTEM IS IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE SUN
>
> Then how do you explain the fact that only two out of the
> six planets with measurable magnetic fields have their
> magnetic fields in the same direction as the Sun's?
This was posted during that discussion, but you may have missed it due
to thread Subject change. Below, copy of that posting.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 06:02:34 -0600
Article: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Zetas RIGHT Again! (Summary 2)
(http://www.zetatalk.com/usenet/use90315.htm)
In a refreshing change for sci.astro discussion surrounding ZetaTalk,
several SCIENTIFIC minded posters began a discussion based on known
FACTS about solar reversals and the magnetic alignment of the Sun and
planets. The results, based on the findings of the Mariner and Ulysses
probes is that the orientation of the planets is:
PLANET at AXIAL and MAGTILT = SUM where POLES DIR with STRENGTH
Mercury at 0° and 11° = 11° where N is Up with .0033
Venus at -2° but NA
Earth at 23° and -11° = 12° where N is Up with .3076
Mars at 24° but NA
Jupiter at 3° and 10° = 13° where N is Down with 4.28
Saturn at 29° and 1° = 30° where N is Down with .210
Uranus at 98° and +59° = -34° where N is Down with .228
Neptune at 29° and +47° = 77° where N is Left with .142
Pluto at 118° and ? = ? where N is Up with ?
It seemed that the outer planets are trying to return to the solar
system (Sun) N is N orientation, while Jupiter and Saturn are acting in
opposition, which the Zetas explained is the gaseous planets not having
any resistance to the Sun's far reaching field and just hosing magnetic
particles north to south, THROUGH the planet.
Then, quietly sitting on the NASA web site, was the recent statement
that indeed, the Zetas were correct, as the Ulysses probe had found the
Sun had NOT reversed polarity, as expected, during its recent passes of
the south and north poles of the Sun in 2001. Per the NASA web site:
JPL September 9, 2001
(http://ulysses.jpl.nasa.gov/press/press.html)
Space physicists predict gusty winds for the next
few months at the Sun's north pole, an area that
will be observed when the Ulysses spacecraft
passes over it starting on Aug. 31 [2001]. This
pass over the pole occurs at a time of solar
maximum ... This will be Ulysses' second pass
over the Sun's north pole. It completed a circuit
of the Sun in 1996 ... In 1995, Ulysses saw
strong and simple magnetic fields at both poles
of the Sun. ...
As Ulysses passed by the south pole of <===
the sun a few months ago, scientists <===
expected to find that magnetic lines <===
were pointing outward, because <===
observations from Earth show that <===
the magnetic field has already <===
reversed at the Sun's surface. <===
Instead, they found that they <===
Magnetic lines were still pointing <===
Inward, just as they had been <===
Throughtout solar minimum. <===
Zetas right again!
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
I note that the only ACTUAL MAGNETIC FINDING, from the Ulysses probe
magnometer, is still being ignored, ie that there was NO change during
the 2001 passage after Solar Maximum from the 1994 pass during Solar
Minimum. SO hard to admit you're wrong about pet theories.
In Article <[email protected]> Andrew Yee wrote:
> News Service
> Stanford University
> 5/29/02
>
> New findings by Stanford astronomers may help solve
> one of the most baffling questions in solar science: What
> causes the Sun's magnetic poles to flip-flop every 11 years?
