Recent content by gdp

You do not merely "assume without proof" --- you `assume' in direct contradiction to a large body of observed data. On the contrary, there is a VERY strong scientific consensus on sunspot magnetism (see, e.g., http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/14171/1/00-0576.pdf" --- and...

You may "postulate" anything you want, but your "postulate" is useless if it fails to explain the data --- which your "postulate" in fact does not. Sunspots in each solar hemisphere http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976IzKry..54..184K" Moreover, the rotational velocities of gases in the sunspot...

No. Please go back and read what I actually wrote. (You should also learn the difference between a logically necessary condition and a logically sufficient condition.) "Force," "Work," "Velocity," and "Acceleration" are all physically distinct concepts, as should be obvious from the mere fact...

Please go back and read what I actually wrote more carefully. Nowhere have I claimed that a change in direction without a change in speed did not require an acceleration. I claimed that a change in a particle's direction of motion that does not change its speed --- i.e., an acceleration that...

I'm sorry, but you are confusing a passive change of inertial frame of reference with an active change in some particle's velocity when it is acted upon by some external force; however, these two concepts are again physically quite distinct. The former is just a passive relabeling of spacetime...

Sure. To find out about generation of charge separation by friction or impact, google on http://www.google.com/search?q=triboelectricity" You separate charges by this process every time you scuff your feet across a carpet. And you can easily build a device that generates electric sparks of...

Why? speed is a directionless non-negative scalar, while velocity is a is a three-dimensional, directed vector. Speed and velocity are physically distinct quantities. No, it has not. Since the kinetic energy --- a scalar quantity! --- is the same after a pure change in direction with no change...

So what? The energy for your electric field is coming from the kinetic energies of the charged particles, and NOT from the static magnetic field itself. According to over 100 years of experimental evidence, a static magnetic field cannot in, of, and by itself do any net work on charged...

The geomagnetic field has long been known to change measurably on a timescale of less than a decade. Since magnetic compasses are still useful for navigation and other purposes, and are therefore still vital to international commerce and to the various national militaries, it should come as no...

The van Allen energy distribution, like most natural distributions, has a long tail, of power-law-like form. Said muons are generated when a cosmic-ray primary hits an atom in the upper atmosphere. Since the atmosphere has roughly the same stopping-power as a meter of lead (i.e., on the...

Actually, we do have enough surface and satellite measurements of the Earth's magnetic field to make http://www.springerlink.com/content/m068215582182832/" assuming that mantle electrical conductivity can be neglected. The data suggest that nearly all geomagnetic variations can be accounted for...

As the previous poster has noted, the 2012 End Of The Mayan "Long Count" Calendar nonsense is exactly that: Nonsense. It's the exact equivalent of those who were irrational enough to have believe that The World Will End with the Year 2000 (or 1900, 0r 1800, or 1700, or 1000, &c., &c.), simple...

False. I stated that a magnetic field does not in and of itself do WORK on a charged particle, because the magnetic force is identically perpendicular to a charged particle's velocity. Thus, a magnetic field can only change the direction of a charged particle's motion, not its speed --- and...

Exactly. About all one can say from these data is that it's likely that Yellowstone may erupt sometime, but the alleged "cycle" of "about 600,000 to 800,000 years" is only an "order of magnitude" estimate. One cannot say much more from these data, other than based on the past three data...

More like 500 meters, not 5 meters.