Earths Magnetic Field

[viscount aero]

Today, electrical or plasma research is considered fringe science of tin foil hat wearers.

Right. And where did the tin foil hats come from? They came from gov't-paid scientists talking about experimental work on mind control using EM waves. (See Bell Island Boom Part 2, starting at 3:30.)

The reputation derives from the mainstream physics community demonizing dissenting opinions of both scientists and laypeople who eschew the establishment's beliefs about the big bang, inflation, cosmological expansion, spacetime, et al. Mind control experiments have been well documented by the OSS/CIA, et al, using myriad things including drugs, sleep deprivation, hypnosis, etc... EM is but one thing in that paradigm. To add, the public is scarcely aware of any such programs in general. The government denies much of it. For example most people in this culture have no idea that LSD was a government program in origin. People just think it was a recreational drug used in the 1960s by hippies.

But in the end, Bucky said it best:

“You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” ― Richard Buckminster Fuller

Well that isn't true. The statement is naive and intellectually dishonest; enter Tesla. Suppressed/blocked science is a profitable game. You can build wonderful models all day long and that itself won't matter one iota. This is my opinion

If we're on the right track, continued investigations will bear out the premise. If politics could suppress science, science as we know it never would have come into existence.

But that again is glib and not really true, ie, "if politics could suppress.....science as we know it never would have come into existence.." isn't true whatsoever. Science as we know it is largely in existence because it was put there intentionally--which includes the intentional exclusion of other sciences such as Tesla-based technologies. Politics also gave rise to the petrol dominant engine and car versus mass transit rail systems in the United States' urban centers (which is not a conspiracy theory but a fact well documented). Don't pretend you don't know these things, Charles.

[CharlesChandler]

If politics could suppress science, science as we know it never would have come into existence.

But that again is glib and not really true...

Ah, but it IS true. The Catholic Church did its best to suppress the Renaissance. They burned books, and sometimes even people, in an attempt to keep new ideas from spreading. But in the end, they failed, and the attempt only hurt their credibility. And that wasn't the first time science triumphed -- this pattern has repeated itself many, many times. Sure, politicians win sometimes, for a little while. But in the end, the truth always prevails. Call me naive if you want, but I think that it's the grandest of truths.

[viscount aero]

If politics could suppress science, science as we know it never would have come into existence.

But that again is glib and not really true...

Ah, but it IS true. The Catholic Church did its best to suppress the Renaissance. They burned books, and sometimes even people, in an attempt to keep new ideas from spreading. But in the end, they failed, and the attempt only hurt their credibility. And that wasn't the first time science triumphed -- this pattern has repeated itself many, many times. Sure, politicians win sometimes, for a little while. But in the end, the truth always prevails. Call me naive if you want, but I think that it's the grandest of truths.

Not really true, friend You must not have read my post entirely. This is getting off topic quite far, but suffice it to say, political regimes regularly suppress technology and science. There are many examples of this, the biggest standout being Tesla. Did you not read that?

Moreover, although it is true Catholicism's dogmatic grip weakened, many ardent spiritual/religious people were scientists, artists, and engineers who directly contributed to the Renaissance including Isaac Newton. Newton wrote more about the Bible in his lifetime than math or science.

[CharlesChandler]

...political regimes regularly suppress technology and science.

And what do you conclude from that? If an unscrupulous person gets away with something, we all have to accept that there is no way to stop unscrupulous people? That's ridiculous. Imagine a cop who sees a criminal away with a crime. So the cop concludes that there's no stopping criminals? Why doesn't he observe criminals getting busted, and conclude that there's no stopping justice? There is actually a lot more truth and justice in this world, and that's by definition, because that's how we survive -- cheaters are never the majority, or the whole thing would come unglued. So this isn't a "half-full, half-empty" issue. It's more like a "95% full, 5% empty" issue. And you choose to think that the world is devoid of truth and justice, and that I am deluded. Well, this isn't just glib optimism on my part, or only choosing to see the good. I acknowledge that there is bad in this world, but I also acknowledge the responsibility to keep doing good work, because that's what keeps this world spinning. People who feel obligated to try to show the futility of doing good work are not realists -- they're the instrument of the suppression.

[viscount aero]

...political regimes regularly suppress technology and science.

And what do you conclude from that? If an unscrupulous person gets away with something, we all have to accept that there is no way to stop unscrupulous people? That's ridiculous. Imagine a cop who sees a criminal away with a crime. So the cop concludes that there's no stopping criminals? Why doesn't he observe criminals getting busted, and conclude that there's no stopping justice? There is actually a lot more truth and justice in this world, and that's by definition, because that's how we survive -- cheaters are never the majority, or the whole thing would come unglued. So this isn't a "half-full, half-empty" issue. It's more like a "95% full, 5% empty" issue. And you choose to think that the world is devoid of truth and justice, and that I am deluded. Well, this isn't just glib optimism on my part, or only choosing to see the good. I acknowledge that there is bad in this world, but I also acknowledge the responsibility to keep doing good work, because that's what keeps this world spinning. People who feel obligated to try to show the futility of doing good work are not realists -- they're the instrument of the suppression.

This needs its own thread

We are not devoid of truth and justice. Those are here. And so are nefarious elements. It's the human condition. I'm not implying we give up. That never entered the discussion. I replied to what I considered glib and blanketing statements, particularly the Buck Fuller quote. The Fuller quote sounds better than it actually describes a truth. Your earlier claim that politics cannot, do not, will not, affect/restrict science is, in my opinion, absolutely false. But this doesn't mean that science is precluded from being conducted in general. There is always a way around a problem even if the adaptation is uncomfortable.

[Fixationable]

I am changing my analogy since my view/explanation of a conductor was far too simple to describe the behavior of the ionosphere. In a coil is windings of a wire, the wire being the basic form of a conductor. It is easy for us to view a cross section of a wire, imagine a current going through it, as it produces a magnetic field. Then we view the magnetic field in its common imagery as a set of parallel flux lines that leave the conductor, circle around and reconnect back to the conductor. (find imagery, description and formulas on magnetic fields here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field)
I also used the analogy of an alternating current motor because there is (assumed) a rotating magnetic field. Not only is the source magnetic field from the sun rotating, but the earth is also rotating and orbiting the sun. So as the conductors of the ionosphere and earth surface travel through and around the sun's magnetic field, and current is induced and the respective magnetic field on those conductors is produced. Then those magnetic field can apply force, such as a stator applies force to the rotor within an AC motor.

However, the ionosphere is not composed of wire conductors, nor does it behave as such. It consists of ionized gas or otherwise known as plasma. Plasma conducts differently than a wire because plasma has no container, or shape. Plasma tends to "self-organize" based on the charges in the gas and can form filaments, and cells (areas of charge).

This tendency towards "cellular structure" can have profound astrophysical implications such as generating electric fields in space and providing sources of energy for driving electric currents over very large distances.

(from http://www.plasmauniverse.info/mag_fields.html )
Because of this the use of a wire as a conductor is inadequate to model the behavior of the ionosphere. And therefore the analogy of the motor might not work.

I am finding more references about conductivity of ionized gases within a magnetic field so there seems to be something relevant here. Such as :

Mechanical forces due to currents induced in moving material are shown to be very important in the sun, and in the F-layer of the earth's atmosphere. The solar results are used to discuss the motion of solar prominences and eruptions. In the earth's atmosphere, the observed collision frequencies of electrons are shown to imply upper limits for ion-densities in the E and F layers. The integral conductivities of the E and F layers are estimated, and it is shown that, on the dynamo theory of the lunar variation of the earth's magnetic field, tidal oscillations in these layers must be between 100 and 1000 times as great as those at the ground.

The E and F layers being parts of the ionosphere.

Also taking into account the "waveguide" properties of the space between the ionosphere and the earth surface, containing the Schumann resonances, this made me think about a magnetron.
Crossed electron and magnetic fields are used in the magnetron to produce a high-power output. It has an anode and a cathode. The Cathode has several cavities, each cavity works like a parallel resonant circuit.
The analogy that I will build on depicts the earth surface as the anode, and the ionosphere as the cathode. The plasma of the ionosphere organizes into cells and filaments that essentially creates cavities and resonant circuits. The induced current from the sun is what powers the cathode and produces the microwaves known as the Schumann resonances.

There is some more evidence that supports this hypothesis. The BICEP2 has made some images that are said to be cosmic microwave background (CMB). The image for it is here: http://kipac.stanford.edu/kipac/sites/d ... BICEP2.png However Steve Crothers on a Thunderbolts video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hC_KkLvG22A disproves the claim that these are CMB's. Actually at about the 8 min. mark he explains that what they imaged was actually microwaved from the earth. He attributes the source as emission from water. I submit that these emissions are from the ionospheric dynamo effect, the "magnetron in the sky", and the image portrays the cellular organization of the parallel cavities.

Another piece of possible evidence is this article on sprites http://news.psu.edu/story/314975/2014/0 ... ionosphere Check out the images, they look like cellular formations of ionized gas. The sprites (according to my hypothesis) are discharges from these cavities that have reached or overcome the electrical threshold.

In addition the analogy is changing because my view of the magnetic field was far too simple as well. The common imagery of a magnetic field is uniform parallel lines of flux. When actually the earths magnetic field, (or summation of magnetic fields) has more of a topography. it is not smooth and always parallel but varies not only in shape, density, space between the flux lines, but also in elevation or distance from the earth surface.

More on that later.

[Sparky]

Typical... Cherry picking points to argue for a broader perspective.

And here I am still trying to figure out the bar magnet....

[Sparky]

When actually the earths magnetic field, (or summation of magnetic fields) has more of a topography. it is not smooth and always parallel but varies not only in shape, density, space between the flux lines, but also in elevation or distance from the earth surface.

You have a very complex view. Can you explain, mechanically, what a magnetic field is? How "flux lines" are produced, indeed, what magnetic force is produced by.?

Remember, I am stuck at bar magnet level...

[viscount aero]

Typical... Cherry picking points to argue for a broader perspective.

And here I am still trying to figure out the bar magnet....

Ok then let us get back to geomagnetism (as if a broader perspective is a bad thing to have). The standard model describes the condition of a bar magnet being composed, initially, of myriad scattered dipole regions somehow suddenly aligning in the same direction by an outside agent, ie, another magnet or current of electricity passed over or through the randomly scattered dipole region. It can derive from an electrolytic process like this, scaled up to the size of a planet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=midVu1Xd2LY

[Sparky]

So, then what???!!! What is the field? Neutrons?

Ok then let us get back to geomagnetism (as if a broader perspective is a bad thing to have).

NO.....it's the cherry picking to support a broader perspective!!!

[viscount aero]

So, then what???!!! What is the field? Neutrons?

Ok then let us get back to geomagnetism (as if a broader perspective is a bad thing to have).

NO.....it's the cherry picking to support a broader perspective!!!

So you don't agree that science is suppressed? Inductive reasoning is fair game, mate.

[Sparky]

So you don't agree that science is suppressed?

What?! where did that come from? You are defending an ideology that I have no interest in. It seems to corrupt your comprehension.

Inductive reasoning is fair game, mate.

Sure is! A great, time wasting, off topic circle jerk!

[viscount aero]

So you don't agree that science is suppressed?

What?! where did that come from? You are defending an ideology that I have no interest in. It seems to corrupt your comprehension.

Inductive reasoning is fair game, mate.

Sure is! A great, time wasting, off topic circle jerk!

Earlier I went off topic, admittedly, and refuted Charles' claim that politics do not or cannot affect or derail good science. You must not have read those posts. Insofar as geomagnetism is concerned it can be scaled and created in a home lab by using an electrolytic process, ergo, the video link I posted. I assume this happens on planetary scales to magnetize worlds that no longer have their own magnetic field. I believe Mars exhibits this phenomenon.

[CharlesChandler]

@VA: I think that we're not as different as our arguments make it seem, but I still like Bucky's prescription for how to make change come about. Anybody can find fault with the existing model. But until something better comes along, everybody will stick with what they have, of necessity. So it all comes down to whether or not the new model is more useful. And yes, perspective is a good thing!

And here I am still trying to figure out the bar magnet...

Well, if we absolute must...

Sub-atomic physics isn't my specialty, but I prefer the idea that all magnetism originates with moving charged particles. As concerns ferromagnetism, the magnetic dipoles originate with electron orbits that create little toroidal fields around the nuclei, just like a solenoid that has an electric current flowing through a wire that is wrapped around an axis. Then, certain elements, most notably iron, are capable of crystal lattices wherein all of the little nuclear dipoles can be brought into line if an external field is applied. It's a metastability, where it takes an external field to set it up, and then the assumed macroscopic polarization persists. But it won't happen without the external field, and iron loses its magnetic polarization if heated above the Curie temperature, when the atomic vibrations snap the electrons back out of the aligned configuration.

What I don't understand about this is why it isn't more robust. For example, why can't all elements spontaneously get magnetized? Why don't all of the electrons decide to orbit the nucleus in the same direction, so that their magnetic fields agree? Then all molecules would be ferromagnetic polymers, with each new dipole appended to the end of the chain, with the same polarity.

I don't know if the experts on this model have answers to these questions. But if this is correct, then ferromagnetism is electrodynamics at the nuclear scale.

@VA: is "nukular" the politically correct way of spelling that?

[Sparky]

Charles, thanks for your effort, but I want to know what the field is....
**************
***************************
aero:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=midVu1Xd2LY

I don't get the importance of that vid....
me:

So, then what???!!! What is the field? Neutrons?

Talking about fields! What are the fields? Corn, rice, hay? Magnetic fields must be more than the general understanding, fields...So what are we talking about?