Sun's Magnetic Field About to Flip

[CharlesChandler]

Have you ever had the experience of witnessing a beach ball, basket ball, soccer ball or any inflatable ball such as you use to play prison ball or water polo, alight on the surface of water with a high rate of spin and begin to precess like any slowing gyroscope and eventually flip 180°, perhaps more than once, before it stops spinning?

I don't understand what this has to do with the flipping of the Sun's magnetic field. Are you saying that the solar dynamo precesses into a counter-rotation? Or that the magnetic field has angular momentum that precesses? Either way, I can't make sense of it.

[Maol]

It’s odd you haven’t seen this. You must have played with gyroscopes and understand precession. Haven’t you seen a gimbal mounted toy gyroscope do this? The rotation does not change direction, the rotational momentum is conserved and the precession changes the orientation of the rotational axis.

This You Tube “Large Brass Gyroscope Demonstration” should help make it clear.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrGfc-3u ... r_embedded

[CharlesChandler]

I know what precession is -- I just don't understand what this has to do with the Sun's magnetic field. Are you saying that the rotation of the Sun is precessing? 180 degrees?

[Maol]

I know what precession is -- I just don't understand what this has to do with the Sun's magnetic field. Are you saying that the rotation of the Sun is precessing? 180 degrees?

Are you saying you think the mass which is the source of the magnetic field in the core of the Sun is not rotating?

[CharlesChandler]

Are you saying you think the mass which is the source of the magnetic field in the core of the Sun is not rotating?

The Sun is definitely rotating. But where's the evidence that it's precessing?

[seasmith]

Sure "cores and axies", but again we take a solar system in its full spatial extent (whichever solar domain or "~spheric" is defined) with cores, axis and planes; to view its functions.
There are trajectories as well, but they are not needed yet.

Elsewheres on this forum (and now vaporized T’bolts rev.1), have been discussed concepts of an EMG and Electro-Magnetic Gyro effects.

These concepts attempts to integrate the commonly observed (although never completely explained)
mechanical and gravitational dynamics seen in common gyroscopes,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g60ZCcquCl8 [Royal Society #4]

,but with recognition of some universally pervasive EM forces.


At sub-atomic/quantum scale, EM potentials/fields are clearly dominant, while at bicycle wheel size it is mechanical force that is most apparent.
Scaling up to a solar system , ‘spins’ seem to again become a function of charge densities (gravity acts always centripetally, never tangentially), and here a precessing charge/mass may reverse polarities, to regain local equilibrium.
[ at “quantum” scales, we see just oscillations. ]

A full solar system ultimately transforms abd transports charge, imo;
but wouldn't a spin-orbit, planetary solar system be like a multi-scale EMGyroscope,
ie EM gyros within gyros
?

[CharlesChandler]

We blame the mainstream for coming up with ideas that are not rooted in observable facts, or worse still, predict the opposite of what is actually observed, and then they lock down on those ideas, defending them with tenacity instead of substance. Well, ummm, I hope you're not going to lock down on that idea, because what we actually observe in the Sun is no measurable precession. Furthermore, if the polarity of the Sun's magnetic field flipped because of precession, the precession would have to work its way through a 180 degree cycle, which would be quite measurable. Further still, during such a cycle, the magnetic field wouldn't suddenly flip -- it would follow the axis of rotation all of the way through the cycle, with a constant rate of change. But this isn't what we're seeing at all.

During the active phase, the 2-pole field of the quiescent phase splits into a 6-pole field (which is still a gross oversimplification, but that's how it averages out). See the diagrams in my earlier post. In the 6-pole configuration, 3 of the sets of field lines have the same orientation as previous field, but 2 sets are going in the opposite direction. Then, as the active phase wears on, the 3 lose strength, and the 2 gain strength. When the split dissolves and the 2-pole field is re-established, the polarity is going in the opposite direction. This is all well-explained, given the observable differential rotation and torsional oscillation, and given that the layers that are speeding up and slowing down with respect to each other are charged. And only with charged layers rotating at different rates are you going to get any sort of dynamo effect anyway, so that's not a stretch. Hence this is more than just an idea. And it's more than just an idea that was inspired by a single observation. It's an idea that accounts for the 2-pole field, the 6-pole field, differential rotation, torsional oscillation, near-surface electrostatic discharges, and a whole bunch of other stuff. So this is the way to go.

What I don't understand is why people in the EU don't want to consider an EM model that is directly tied to the observations, especially when the model takes the full range of observations into account, to make sure that it isn't cherry-picking. It's almost like people in the EU are scared to get real. Perhaps every time somebody has tried this before, it failed, and now the EU is gun-shy. But when you start preferring epiphanies that aren't rooted in observations, or that defy the observations, you're making the same mistake as the mainstream. You'll end up in a mentality that is fully disconnected from reality, and then you'll fight anybody who IS getting real. You might as well have just stayed in the mainstream if you're going to be like that.

The fact of the matter here is that in the last 10 years, we've gained a lot of high-precision data on the Sun, and now all of the pieces are falling into place. Like it or not, a real EM model is emerging.

[nick c]

Criticizing the EU for positing a solar precession is a new one for me. Maybe I am missing something here, but I have never read anything in the EU literature about a solar precession. Could someone give a reference?

[seasmith]

... what we actually observe in the Sun is no measurable precession.

Charles,
The entire point of that whole long post was to emphasize that indeed, the precession is not in the sun !
It is within the entire volume of the solar system, extending Many billions of cubic miles, where the vast amount of charge is in motion.
Think for example, of the rolling up and down motions of the "Ballerina's Skirt". I think everyone agrees the the Parker Spiral is a gargantuan flow of charge, yes?


http://www.google.com/search?q=Parker+s ... =959&dpr=1

[CharlesChandler]

Criticizing the EU for positing a solar precession is a new one for me. Maybe I am missing something here, but I have never read anything in the EU literature about a solar precession. Could someone give a reference?

I wasn't criticizing the EU for Maol's idea. The criticism of the EU in general was that I'm presenting a model that is based directly on the broad range of relevant observations, and nobody wants to hear about it. So you can either be an EU hard-liner, or you can propose your own ideas, so long as they don't disagree with the hard-line EU position. But if you present a mechanistic model that's thoroughly electromagnetic, but different from the EU's, you get flamed, JREF-style, as I have been on several threads here. The only reason why I'm still on this board, after all of my cohorts have already given up, and now are doing all of their work on my site, is that I'm still picking up cohorts here! So it's to my advantage to keep showing people that there is a better way.

The entire point of that whole long post was to emphasize that indeed, the precession is not in the sun! It is within the entire volume of the solar system, extending Many billions of cubic miles, where the vast amount of charge is in motion.

No, I think that the solar system is pretty stable, with respect to the Milky Way, and distant stars. If the entire solar system was precessing 180 degrees every 11 years, it would be hard to miss.

Think for example, of the rolling up and down motions of the "Ballerina's Skirt". I think everyone agrees the the Parker Spiral is a gargantuan flow of charge, yes?

The pleats in the ballerina's skirt are generated by the helmet streamers, which are, in fact, emitting a current, but which have nothing to do with the Sun's overall magnetic field, nor the way it flips every 11 years. The skirt gets a new set of pleats once per revolution of the Sun (i.e., ~25 days).

[seasmith]

Charles, Again: core, axis, volume and motion, if you want a real physical model.

Yes, the ecliptic skirt would be your "helmet streamers" portion of a vast charge volume.

Precession is not 'flipping'. Polarities reversing is ~flipping.

If the spin axis of the solar center orb is nutating, (wether via its trajectory along a spiraling filament, or from some other celestial dynamics is another thread),
the nutation/precession, from our small earthly perspective will not be easy to scale.
Like a gyroscope, the motion is most obvious at the peripheral extensions.

"Every 25 days" is a lot of motion, no?

[CharlesChandler]

Precession is not 'flipping'. Polarities reversing is ~flipping.

I'm not getting enough out of these cryptic remarks to really have a sense of what you're saying. So again comes the question: what does precession (and/or nutation) have to do with the flipping of the magnetic fields? I just don't get it.

[nick c]

Charles,
It really is not that complicated. The forum has an assortment of boards. The "Electric Universe" and "Planetary Science" boards are for discussion of the published work of EU theorists. You are free to post your own EU related thoughts, hypothesis, or otherwise on the other boards. This is not in anyway censorship, considering the entire spectrum of boards on the TB forum, there is a tolerance for alternative ideas on this forum that does not exist on most other venues. You are more than welcome to advertise your forum in the proper places.
Equating the TB forum to JREF is nothing short of ridiculous!

[seasmith]

I'm not getting enough out of these cryptic remarks to really have a sense of what you're saying. So again comes the question: what does precession (and/or nutation) have to do with the flipping of the magnetic fields? I just don't get it

"Cryptic" ??

noun: precession
the slow movement of the axis of a spinning body around another axis due to a torque (such as gravitational influence) acting to change the direction of the first axis. It is seen in the circle slowly traced out by the pole of a spinning gyroscope.

The precessional charge/mass of a solar system is primarily moving EXternal to the orb of sun. The magnetic field, as usual, is secondary to electric charge-in-motion. In other words, the charge/mass Momentum is with the Outer wheels of gyroscopic motion,
hence the EMG, electro-magnetic gyro concept.

The EM and G must be integrated, if you want your "mechanical" model to progress, imo.

I'm not your enemy here.

[Maol]

Check out this information about the counter-rotation of Earth’s molten outer core and superrotation of the solid iron inner core, and how these phenomena affect Earth’s magnetic field. Perhaps some conclusions can be reached regarding the shared phenomena of rotating bodies with concurrent rotating magnetic fields, mindful of the fact that rotation embodies gyroscopic forces – precession - etc.

http://phys.org/news/2013-09-insights-y ... earth.html

New insights solve 300-year-old problem: The dynamics of the Earth's core
22 hours ago

Scientists at the University of Leeds have solved a 300-year-old riddle about which direction the centre of the earth spins.

The Earth's inner core, made up of solid iron, 'superrotates' in an eastward direction – meaning it spins faster than the rest of the planet – while the outer core, comprising mainly molten iron, spins westwards at a slower pace.

Although Edmund Halley – who also discovered the famous comet – showed the westward-drifting motion of the Earth's geomagnetic field in 1692, it is the first time that scientists have been able to link the way the inner core spins to the behavior of the outer core. The planet behaves in this way because it is responding to the Earth's geomagnetic field.

The findings, published today in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, help scientists to interpret the dynamics of the core of the Earth, the source of our planet's magnetic field.

The findings, published today in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, help scientists to interpret the dynamics of the core of the Earth, the source of our planet's magnetic field.

In the last few decades, seismometers measuring earthquakes travelling through the Earth's core have identified an eastwards, or superrotation of the solid inner core, relative to Earth's surface.

"The link is simply explained in terms of equal and opposite action", explains Dr Philip Livermore, of the School of Earth and Environment at the University of Leeds. "The magnetic field pushes eastwards on the inner core, causing it to spin faster than the Earth, but it also pushes in the opposite direction in the liquid outer core, which creates a westward motion."

The solid iron inner core is about the size of the Moon. It is surrounded by the liquid outer core, an iron alloy, whose convection-driven movement generates the geomagnetic field.

The fact that the Earth's internal magnetic field changes slowly, over a timescale of decades, means that the electromagnetic force responsible for pushing the inner and outer cores will itself change over time. This may explain fluctuations in the predominantly eastwards rotation of the inner core, a phenomenon reported for the last 50 years by Tkal?i? et al. in a recent study published in Nature Geoscience.

Other previous research based on archeological artefacts and rocks, with ages of hundreds to thousands of years, suggests that the drift direction has not always been westwards: some periods of eastwards motion may have occurred in the last 3,000 years. Viewed within the conclusions of the new model, this suggests that the inner core may have undergone a westwards rotation in such periods.

The authors used a model of the Earth's core which was run on the giant super-computer Monte Rosa, part of the Swiss National Supercomputing Centre in Lugano, Switzerland. Using a new method, they were able to simulate the Earth's core with an accuracy about 100 times better than other models.