Ray Ingles In article 22@fedfil.UUCP news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes: [deletions] Primative

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

Ray Ingles Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) Message-ID: 08x-m4#@engin.umich.edu Newsgroups: talk.origins In article <22@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes: [deletions] > >Primative peoples (in our day and age) tend to worship whatever strikes them >as most awesome, amazing, exciting etc. in life. I can and will cite >several examples: [deletions] >Two of the least large, least impressive, least assuming, inconspicuous, >non-candidates for deity in the entire universe today are the >far-off planets Jupiter and Saturn. An overwhelming majority of people >in the world couldn't even find them or point them out. >And yet, just 4000 years ago, these two planets were the two chieftain >gods in every nation on earth, every religion on earth... the two most >feared entities in existence. Given present realities, this not only >makes no sense, it is impossible. Just out of curiosity, why then were the *other* planets (e.g. Mars) worshipped as gods when they were nowhere nearby? [deletions] >I have claimed that this planet once orbitted a small electromagnetic >star, one pole forever pointed straight at that star, animals on the >earth feeling gravitational pull not only of the earth, but of the star >as well. Only this allowed the giant antediluvian animals. Um... I don't know a whole lot about astrophysics, but I'm a grad student in electrical engineering, and I know a bit about electromagnetism. Let's stay simple. As hopefully everyone knows, the north pole of one magnet will point at the south pole of another magnet, and vice versa. Now, for the situation Ted describes here to hold, we have to assume that Earth's north pole (well, actually, Earth's *magnetic* north pole, but let's assume they are the same for simplicity) was pointed at the south pole of this 'electromagnetic star.' But, also, the Earth was revolving in orbit around that star. The only way for this to be true is if the magnetic south pole of the star was *moving* relative to the surface of the star, and in fact, 'tracking' the Earth in its orbit. (Take two magnets. Clamp one into a vise. Take the other magnet and move it in "orbit" around the fixed magnet. You will *feel* the forces trying to rotate the magnet you're holding. Better yet, suspend the 'orbiting' magnet on a string, so that it's free to rotate, then see whether it does what Ted says it does.) Now, it's true that the magnetic fields of planets and stars change over time... but over *centuries* or more, not over one orbit of a planet. (Well, now, the Sun's varies quite dramatically over short periods of time... and gives rise to things liek sunspots and solar prominences and solar flares. All of which would be kind of nasty to a planet nearby... and none of these follow much of a stable pattern.*) And not as regularly as an orbit. When we add in the *huge* fields necessary for this to work at all, it becomes even more... um... unlikely. What in the Earth could possibly have generated a field many, many, many, many orders of magnitude stronger than present? Also, Ted has, so far as I can tell, never defined what he means by 'electromagnetic star,' explained what properties it would have (aside from a magical mobile pole or two), or given any kind of mechanism for one to exist. I could go on, but this is a decent start. >Ted Holden *There is a 'sunspot cycle' (which is really several superimposed cycles of varying lengths) but it doesn't mean sunspots form in the same places all the time... there's just times when there are more or less susnspots. Sincerely, Ray Ingles || The above opinions are probably || not those of the University of ingles@caen.engin.umich.edu || Michigan. Yet.

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank