Re: Pole Shifts - Should We Care?

In Article <3B6ADB4B.2EB56C16@home.com>, Robert Ehrlich wrote:
> I guess you are writing with respect to the "trivial" nature of the field
> stability mentioned in my reply.  The reason for assuming a trivial
> mechanism is that the field can fluctuate greatly over relatively short
> periods of time.  As field strength falls toward zero the field rapidly
> oscillates from normal to reversed many times.  This effect has been
> observed from samples of lava flows that have cooled through their Curie
> point just as the field was collapsing.  The theoreticians tend to
> agree that the field is tied to some sort of dynamic activity in the
> nickel/iron core.

What in the hell does this have to do with anything? The goddamned
theoreticians don't have a clue.  So what the hell does it matter what
they agree upon? The sons of bitches are all on the same payroll more
or less so what the hell would you expect but that they would agree? 
They don't know that the core is nickel/iron so why the hell do you
discuss it as if it were.  See.  Their bullshit gets legitimized by
repetiion and eventually it gets passed off on the public as genuine.

"Further, because they have believed that it was unbecoming for a man
of education to confess ignorance on any point, they have so accustomed
themselves to trick out their fabricated explanations, that they have
ended by gradually imposing on themselves and thus have issued them to
the public as genuine"  Rene Descartes, c.f. 'Rules for the Direction
of the Mind.'


> However such phenomena must be kind of chaotic to
> explain the unpredictability of durations between reversals, rates of
> change of field strength, the rapid oscillations in polarity, and the
> fact that the field after reaching zero comes back up with its original
> polarity about half the time.  Most models (and that is what they are
> since we can't see the core) are slightly constrained by evidence from
> earthquake waves that create a kind of hologram over time of the
> structure of the core. 

They are not models.  They are bullshit theories.  A model is a copy of
a thing that existed or exists now or in the future as in a model
bridge that is going to be built or of a ship that was built.  A theory
is a made up 'explanation' that draws more on opinion than any facts of
the matter.

Ace Schallger