Earths Magnetic Field

Historic planetary instability and catastrophe. Evidence for electrical scarring on planets and moons. Electrical events in today's solar system. Electric Earth.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: geomagnetism cause?

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Sat May 10, 2014 3:07 pm

It's a beautiful day in the Local Chimney... :D

But seriously, I need to stay focused on the theory, and somebody else needs to manage the marketing. As soon as new product development stops, for whatever reason (e.g., making a full-time job out of marketing what you already have), the dynamic of the whole thing changes, and not for the better. It turns into an end-game strategy, where you just have one thing, and you're trying to milk it for all it's worth. In general, that's a dead-end strategy, but I think that this is especially true for what we're talking about. Science isn't a position -- it's a process -- and the value is that when it's done correctly, you make headway. If we're going to get branded, it should be as people who are in motion, not as people who had a kick-ass epiphany and now they think that the world is going to start revolving around them. :D So to put the substance into the press releases, there needs to be constant progress. And that means that somebody needs to be working on it. ;) Lloyd is worth his weight in gold for his vast knowledge of theories in general, and for his insistence that all contentions be explicitly stated and supported. So we make a great theoretical team (even if the only thing on which we actually agree is that there is a proper way of evaluating new ideas). But neither of us have demonstrated a willingness to break off from the theoretical issues to put substantial amounts of time into increasing the social footprint of the project. So it's certainly our shortcoming, but it's also an opportunity for somebody else to join the team.

Besides, I'm more intrigued by the possibilities of Internet teamwork than I am by my own astrophysics theories. My current positions on the various issues will all be superseded as new information becomes available. But the Internet makes it possible for like minds from all over the world, who would not have met otherwise, to collaborate. If we can develop a more productive venue for online collaboration, that will be the mother load. Wikipedia has proven how much value can accumulate when a lot of people make small contributions. The only problem is that they decided to focus on the consensus, which rules out the kind of thing that we're doing. So QDL is designed to support scientific progress, with the features & protocols for exposing contrary views, debating the issues, summarizing discussions, and drawing conclusions. I disagree with most of what people have posted there, but I'll defend to the end their right to post it (and I'll provide tech support as needed :D). So I'm doing astrophysics & geophysics theory, and I'm developing & maintaining a website for online collaboration. That's enough for one person. ;)

Can you figure out how to market any of that? ;)
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1790
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Geomagnetism AND an alternative to Schumann resonance so

Unread postby Fixationable » Sat May 10, 2014 9:12 pm

Sparky, I am no instructor, and some of this I am only barely learning to put into words, but I will try to give a basic summary. Even then most of what I will say on magnetism is repeated from others. In particular would be Gauss, and his law on magnetism. In its most basic form we must direct our attention to the molecular level and the charges on particles, such as electrons and protons. It is free electrons that make it possible for elements to combine to create new molecules, plus the attraction or repulsion of the charge of the particles. This is the process that allows hydrogen to combine with oxygen. Of course Oxygen has two free electrons so it can attract two hydrogens and give us water. (H2O)
These electrons can become free of the atom all together and travel through space or to another location (other atoms with an open space) with an attracting polarity. In electricity, this is known as electron travel or hole travel. An electron moves to a new location leaving a hole behind, a space for a new electron to travel to. When the electrons travel this is known as current.
So to the bar magnet, such as a rod of iron, a current can pass through the iron and align the polarities of all the molecules within the iron. This creates a permanent magnet because the actual structure of the iron is aligned and will stay that way, even when the current is turned off. The molecules align so that all the electrons are pointed in one direction, or pole, and the "holes" are aligned in the opposite direction. The electrons continue to attract holes, but now the force is combined with many other electrons. The same with the other pole, the "holes" will continue to attract electrons.
This force of attraction has a strength and a direction, but its not only a single direction, but many directions at the same time. This is where vector calculus comes in with the theorem of solenoidal vector fields. Sorry Sparky you are on your own there. :lol:
Back to basic terms and imagery, the attraction created by one pole curves back around to the other pole. Like polarities repel, unlike polarities attract. The poles of the magnets (which are unlike) continue to attract each through the space around them. The molecules are locked in the structure of the iron, so they will continue to reach for each other through the space around them; (like lovers held apart by the distance equal to the circumference of the earth, each looking straight out to the sky on opposite sides). The space around the earth is in the field of attraction, this field is known as a magnetic field.
A conductor with a current will generate a magnetic field in the same way, except in the case of a conductor, this is not a permanent magnet. When the current stops, so does the magnetic field wane.

This discussion could also be pertinent to some comparisons I have been thinking about between Earth and Venus. There have been several satellites that traveled by Venus to measure its magnetic field and they have all recorded very low strength magnetic field. This has presented the astrologists with many perplexing questions. The size of Venus is not that much smaller than Earth. Venus is very hot and has a much thicker ionosphere and high sulphur content in the atmosphere. It is also closer to the sun, which should be in a stronger part of the suns magnetic field. So why is it so small? The theory I find so far states that the internal dynamo does not work because the planet spins too slow.

I believe my hypothesis could have an answer.
First, lets talk about the internal dynamo theory briefly. This theory basically say that a molten core inside the earth spins like...well not unlike the motor that I initially described. However, one vital flaw to this theory is that IF the core is molten, then the polarities of the particles will not line up like a permanent magnet. The molecules are not held in place within the structure. The ions, or free electrons and holes would be capable of moving anywhere that attracted them. This means if it is true that the earths magnetic field is not a permanent field, but only has strength based on the current inducted into it. But even more so, it doesn't appear that this could be true since the molten core would not align itself to work as a motor or a dynamo.
Therefore, I do not believe a dynamo or lack there of has anything to due with the lack of a magnetic field on Venus.
Rather it has to do with two things:
Orbit, atmosphere composition.
The orbit of Venus has almost no eccentricity, it is a circle. Remember the discussion way back when about a conductor traveling though a magnetic field will be induced with a current? The conductor needs to travel in a direction that is NOT parallel to the magnetic field. It needs to cross through a variation in charge potential in order to get the current. Venus does not do this, it orbits in a circle, therefore it will not be induced with any current, no current, no magnetic field.
The other part is the sulfuric content of the atmosphere. Now think back to the discussion about the ionosphere...it contains ions, free electrons. The different elements require different levels of energy to free those electrons. This is called ionization energy. "The ionization energy is a measure of the energy required to remove one electron from one mole of gaseous atoms or ions." Now, I am not a chemist and I dont pretend to understand electron affinity and how enthalpy works. But it appears that sulphur takes more energy to separate electrons and make ions. This also depends on the atmospheric pressure and temperature of Venus, since all the values I can find about the elements are based on one atmosphere, at a base temperature.

Put all these things together and the ionosphere of Venus is not as conductive, and does not produce an effective plasma for induction of a current. The surface of Venus is assumed to be as conductive as the surface of Earth, however, it does not travel across magnetic flux and does not induct a current. These are the reasons, according to the ionospheric dynamo hypothesis, that Venus does not have a magnetic field.
Fixationable
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: geomagnetism cause?

Unread postby viscount aero » Sat May 10, 2014 10:34 pm

CharlesChandler wrote:It's a beautiful day in the Local Chimney... :D

But seriously, I need to stay focused on the theory, and somebody else needs to manage the marketing. As soon as new product development stops, for whatever reason (e.g., making a full-time job out of marketing what you already have), the dynamic of the whole thing changes, and not for the better. It turns into an end-game strategy, where you just have one thing, and you're trying to milk it for all it's worth. In general, that's a dead-end strategy, but I think that this is especially true for what we're talking about. Science isn't a position -- it's a process -- and the value is that when it's done correctly, you make headway. If we're going to get branded, it should be as people who are in motion, not as people who had a kick-ass epiphany and now they think that the world is going to start revolving around them. :D So to put the substance into the press releases, there needs to be constant progress. And that means that somebody needs to be working on it. ;) Lloyd is worth his weight in gold for his vast knowledge of theories in general, and for his insistence that all contentions be explicitly stated and supported. So we make a great theoretical team (even if the only thing on which we actually agree is that there is a proper way of evaluating new ideas). But neither of us have demonstrated a willingness to break off from the theoretical issues to put substantial amounts of time into increasing the social footprint of the project. So it's certainly our shortcoming, but it's also an opportunity for somebody else to join the team.

Besides, I'm more intrigued by the possibilities of Internet teamwork than I am by my own astrophysics theories. My current positions on the various issues will all be superseded as new information becomes available. But the Internet makes it possible for like minds from all over the world, who would not have met otherwise, to collaborate. If we can develop a more productive venue for online collaboration, that will be the mother load. Wikipedia has proven how much value can accumulate when a lot of people make small contributions. The only problem is that they decided to focus on the consensus, which rules out the kind of thing that we're doing. So QDL is designed to support scientific progress, with the features & protocols for exposing contrary views, debating the issues, summarizing discussions, and drawing conclusions. I disagree with most of what people have posted there, but I'll defend to the end their right to post it (and I'll provide tech support as needed :D). So I'm doing astrophysics & geophysics theory, and I'm developing & maintaining a website for online collaboration. That's enough for one person. ;)

Can you figure out how to market any of that? ;)


Well you've already figured it all out, mate :) I'm giving you advice as a professional marketer--free advice--as a "for instance" opening salvo in "joining the team" but you're not really interested in hearing it :roll: You overthink things that you are not actually making a living doing. That would be like me giving you physics advice. You seem to disagree or deny, too, that someone like Carl Sagan, someone who spearheaded a movement, was a celebrity.

In short, again, to cut through your deafness, unless you brand YOURSELF you will not get anywhere. Edison branded HIMSELF. Ford branded HIMSELF. Carl Sagan branded HIMSELF. Colonel Sanders Chicken branded HIMSELF. That is--he had a marketing team but it was branding HIM. Wal Thornhill gives lectures--he appears OFTEN and FREQUENTLY. That is a form of branding. He is the FACE of the "Thunderbolts Project." So give your "movement" a name and brand it with celebrities (you). But I feel you won't really hear this, though :cry: An obscure and invisible theoretical physics website is your comfort zone. You're a great guy and I've always liked you but you're not really into marketing yourself.
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: Geomagnetism AND an alternative to Schumann resonance so

Unread postby Sparky » Sun May 11, 2014 7:38 am

sparky:
Can you explain, mechanically, what a magnetic field is? How "flux lines" are produced, indeed, what magnetic force is produced by.?


FiX
the attraction created by one pole curves back around to the other pole
.


Thanks, but I still have this problem. What curves back? What is the "field" made up of? It is a force; one can feel it. So, it must have a mechanical substance that can apply force.

And like smoke, it flows around other areas, and appears to intermingle.

Very strange, that we casually describe a force field by calling it a field, but can not explain what is making up the field. :?
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
Sparky
 
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: Geomagnetism AND an alternative to Schumann resonance so

Unread postby seasmith » Sun May 11, 2014 5:14 pm

~
Sparky:
And like smoke, it flows around other areas, and appears to intermingle.


As recently discussed here:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=15037#p95523
prior to the generation of a so-called "field", the volume of space under consideration is first ~strained/tensioned/torqued electricly, by the presence of some local 'potentials'. (in Faraday's words, an "electro-tonic state" is induced).
In other words, a N-S and/or [+-] potential ( as in battery or magnet) is progenitor to 'field'. A field is then the complex result.
That field can be purposely structured, like a magneto-optic cavity, or can assume the contours of the local ambient 3D space.

The next logical question to be asked then, is 'what is being contoured'? If there is no gas or plasma, in that volume of field-space, what Are the furrows being plowed? Or perhaps a better 3D topology would ask, what vanes are being realigned to redirect the flows ?
Perhaps it is the magnetic torque of an electric drive which is operating the vanes.

It all depends on how you choose to visualize an action, which has not yet aquired the requisite language .

A nice visual aid, imo, is Arago's Disc, which predated Faraday's homopolar motor by about a decade.
Plenty images and discussion of which at google...
seasmith
 
Posts: 2815
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: geomagnetism cause?

Unread postby henrybroadbent » Sun May 11, 2014 10:39 pm

Peter is right Charles the magnetic field is sustained by the rotation of the conducting cores past the magnetic field of the earth. It is described by us electrical engineers as a homopolar generator. No doubt there is an element of self-excitation but the ambient magnetic field is enough and a voltage will appear between core and the mantle from which currents will flow. I proved this by fixing a high strength disk magnet with chrome? coating on the head of a steel screw and spinning the screw in a electric drill. Sure enough I measured a voltage between screw shaft and the disc periphery. The magnetic field is in effect fixed to the background stars.

Now as to the periodic reversal of earth polarity this can be achieved by precessional reversal of the earth physically until the present Northern Hemisphere points to the present Southern heavens. The sun then will rise in the west and the earth polarity will reverse. Only the mantle will reverse its position but the cores will continue to rotate without turning over with the mantle. The necessary torques to turn the earth over is provided by close approach of charged large comets or other planets. If the earth moves due to electromagnetic forces the core will shift from the centre of the mantle and provide the necessary torque. No mystery it has happened many times in the past and very recently.
henrybroadbent
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2011 11:03 pm

Re: geomagnetism cause?

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Sun May 11, 2014 11:38 pm

henrybroadbent wrote:Peter is right Charles the magnetic field is sustained by the rotation of the conducting cores past the magnetic field of the earth. It is described by us electrical engineers as a homopolar generator. No doubt there is an element of self-excitation but the ambient magnetic field is enough and a voltage will appear between core and the mantle from which currents will flow. I proved this by fixing a high strength disk magnet with chrome? coating on the head of a steel screw and spinning the screw in a electric drill. Sure enough I measured a voltage between screw shaft and the disc periphery. The magnetic field is in effect fixed to the background stars.

A magnetic field fixed to the background stars induces a current, that then generates a magnetic field, which is more powerful than the background field? If the weaker field could motivate a current, the back-pressure from the stronger field generated by the current should be able to stop it.

henrybroadbent wrote:Now as to the periodic reversal of earth polarity this can be achieved by precessional reversal of the earth physically until the present Northern Hemisphere points to the present Southern heavens. The sun then will rise in the west and the earth polarity will reverse. Only the mantle will reverse its position but the cores will continue to rotate without turning over with the mantle. The necessary torques to turn the earth over is provided by close approach of charged large comets or other planets. If the earth moves due to electromagnetic forces the core will shift from the centre of the mantle and provide the necessary torque. No mystery it has happened many times in the past and very recently.

How would the close approach of charged large comets or other planets exert torque on the Earth, redirecting all of the angular momentum in the mantle?
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1790
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: geomagnetism cause?

Unread postby Sparky » Mon May 12, 2014 5:52 am

henry:
The magnetic field is in effect fixed to the background stars.
:?

What property of a magnetic field, say from a bar magnet, is able to produce a force?

Have you thought of that? We use gravity equations and electrical equations, but do not have a mechanical understanding of magnetic field or gravity. :?

thank you
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
Sparky
 
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: geomagnetism cause?

Unread postby jtb » Tue May 13, 2014 9:47 am

The Earth's atmosphere is likewise a (positively) charged double-layer, and the electric force is what binds it to the planet, not gravity plus the shielding of a magnetic field. The proof is that Venus, with a little bit less gravity, and no magnetic field, has an even thicker atmosphere.


Charles, the above is the answer to my next question. How does the atmosphere keep up with Earth's west to east rotation of ~1,000 mph at the equator? Prevailing winds east to west at the equator mean they are blowing at speeds greater than 1,000 mph.

Are there any scientific experiments to support your theory? Has it been replicated in the lab? After all, Its all about the evidence.

Velokovski in Worlds in Collision stated that Joshua's long day began when he said “Sun stand thou still”. He could easily have said “Earth still thy rotation”. I began looking for scientific evidence to support a rotating Earth. The only scientific evidence I found was the Michelson-Gale experiment which concluded that either Earth was rotating at ~1,000 mph or the universe was rotating about Earth at ~1,000 mph. Consensus is that Earth is rotating.

Absent additional scientific evidence, Earth may be the stationary center of a rotating solar system or universe or both and Earth may not be traveling through the universe at ~2,000,000 mph. When I was in school many years ago Earth was only traveling at ~66,000 mph. The speed limit has increased significantly since then. I think we need to
reexamine the evidence to make sure we are accelerating in the right direction.
jtb
 
Posts: 562
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 12:36 am

Re: geomagnetism cause?

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Tue May 13, 2014 1:10 pm

jtb wrote:Are there any scientific experiments to support your theory? Has it been replicated in the lab? After all, Its all about the evidence.

I base all of my work on principles that have been proved in the laboratory. The only novelty is the application of such findings to astronomy and geophysics. Most people assume that solving the remaining mysteries in this Universe will require strange new thoughts from far outside the box. That might have been true for scientists in the late 1800s and early 1900s, who didn't know about nuclear forces, and who didn't have an atomic theory that integrated inertial, gravitational, EM, and nuclear forces into one highly accurate model. But that was then -- this is now. Thanks to the innovative thinking in the early 1900s, a fully mechanical model emerged in the mid-1900s. It just hasn't been applied back to astronomy and geophysics, which are still dominated by concepts forged in the early 1900s by Einstein and his cronies. So the opportunity here is to re-assess all of those concepts, using modern laboratory physics as the foundation.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1790
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Geomagnetism AND an alternative to Schumann resonance so

Unread postby Fixationable » Fri May 16, 2014 6:41 am

Thank you seasmith, you explained it well.

The problem of the "field" has some of the properties of, hmm...what is the proper term here...relativity? A field is a time-variable force.
Something that is in constant motion is very very difficult to visualize because the only way to measure it is to take a snap shot, or freeze a moment in time. When we do this we are only measuring the "state" that it is in at that particular moment. Its like the Observer Effect in quantum physics - "the notion that there is no phenomenon until it is observed."

If we try to answer seasmith's question:
If there is no gas or plasma, in that volume of field-space, what Are the furrows being plowed?


A vacuum in this case, I am assuming is a perfect vacuum where the space is completely void of any kind of particles (space, as in outer space, between the planets is not a vacuum afterall). A magnetic field is all about polarities, and the alignments of the particles. When all the particles in an area are aligned there is a strength of field. Any particle that moves into this field will feel the pull/push of the polarities. It depends on the position (relative to this field), the direction of movement, and the speed of the particle, and its spin as to how it will "observe" the magnetic field. All of these aspects will also determine if, and what charge will be on that particle. It will be attracted or repelled depending on its own polarity relative to the strength of the polarity around it.
So in a perfect vacuum, there are no particles to align, there is no "observer". Please insert your favorite "if a tree falls in the woods and none is around to hear it, will it make a sound" jokes.

The strength of the polarities is still there in this perfect vacuum. Insert a compass in the vacuum and you still have the particles of the compass.
If we were able to inject a single particle into a vacuum jar we would then again be able to observe the effects of the magnetic field upon that particle. The field did not disappear, its only that there were no particles for it to act upon. No particles mean there is nothing to measure or observe.
Fixationable
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: Geomagnetism AND an alternative to Schumann resonance so

Unread postby Sparky » Fri May 16, 2014 8:21 am

So in a perfect vacuum, there are no particles to align,

Seems that this would suggest that there is no perfect vacuum... :?

And we need to consider other phenomenon, action at a distance. How, if there is only a vacuum? Seems we need a medium to conduct force. :?

If we have forces being conveyed though a vacuum, maybe it isn't a vacuum. It is either magic or mechanical. A mechanical structure of a vacuum is suggested.

We have space time fabric. Except for the "time", that may be close enough. Warping of space is attributed to gravity. Could it also be the magnetic field? :? ;)
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
Sparky
 
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: Geomagnetism AND an alternative to Schumann resonance so

Unread postby Fixationable » Fri May 16, 2014 9:34 pm

Sounds like you are saying that space is a vacuum. Space is NOT a vacuum. It is full of plasma.

In any case, it is all explained here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKG7HFM21Qk

Watch this.
Fixationable
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2014 4:55 pm

Magnetic polar shift sooner?

Unread postby antosarai » Sun Jul 20, 2014 1:28 pm

antosarai
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Sun May 18, 2014 8:41 am

Re: Magnetic polar shift sooner?

Unread postby Sparky » Wed Jul 23, 2014 8:28 am

Magnetic Flip>?! Does this mean that the north pole would be called the south pole? :?
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
Sparky
 
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests