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: Magnetic polar shift sooner?

Unread postby Sparky » Thu Jul 24, 2014 2:50 pm

http://www.wired.com/2010/09/superfast- ... -reversal/

It is only the second report of such a speedy change in geomagnetic direction. The first, described in 1995 based on rocks at Steens Mountain, Oregon, has never gained widespread acceptance in the paleomagnetism community. A second example could bolster the theory that reversals really can happen quickly, over the course of years or centuries instead of millennia.
"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: Earths Magnetic Field

Unread postby Krackonis » Sat Dec 27, 2014 9:47 am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z67EKcOpjaQ

I'm not certain if anyone was able to see this series of videos but regarding pole flips, around the 24 minute mark he starts discussing what happens if you put a small (magnetic) bowl inside a larger (magnetic) bowl.

I began to think about the planet Saturn blocking the sun for a few passes and then us going southward and up into it's magnetic donut/torus. If we were aligned with the sun and Saturn, we would be REQUIRED to flip magnetically if we went into the southern torus of Saturn.

I just noticed that, take it as you will.
Neil Thompson

EET

"We are the universe trying to understand itself." - Delen, Babylon 5
User avatar
Krackonis
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 11:44 am
Location: Moncton, NB, Canada

Re: Earths Magnetic Field

Unread postby seasmith » Sat Dec 27, 2014 5:30 pm

Krackonis wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z67EKcOpjaQ

I'm not certain if anyone was able to see this series of videos but regarding pole flips, around the 24 minute mark he starts discussing what happens if you put a small (magnetic) bowl inside a larger (magnetic) bowl.

I began to think about the planet Saturn blocking the sun for a few passes and then us going southward and up into it's magnetic donut/torus. If we were aligned with the sun and Saturn, we would be REQUIRED to flip magnetically if we went into the southern torus of Saturn.



Sounds possible...
moon shadow, moon shadow- cat stevens



[ D. LaPoint's Primer Fields were discussed some here, while you were on sabbatical ]
archetypal Bowl and Torus with central Void plus Jets:

“”Above someone inquired as to generating the shape of the fields: Apply angular momentum to the mass of any spherical magnetic dipole in which a dynamo type of movement is generating/amplifying the field. You get 2 bowl shaped fields. “- a “friend” of David Lapoint

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable ... field.html


Primer Fields
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=9221&start=60


Primer Fields
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z67EKcOpjaQ


Magnetic vortices
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4859&start=120



LaPoint has the vast arcade of galaxies being shaped by “magnetic bowls”,
but since there are no cera-magnetic bowls apparent in space, a reciprocal explanation may be proposed:

Counter-rotating fields (vortices) form first, at nodes along electric filaments; then ‘bowls, toroidal discs, central voids and jets’
( consisting of stars, dust, gases and plasmas ), then coalesce around and about that central matrix.


–>I<–
seasmith
 
Posts: 2815
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: Earths Magnetic Field

Unread postby seasmith » Mon Jul 20, 2015 10:07 am

~
More linear/planar magnetic field structures observed:

Observations by the Spatio-Temporal Analysis of Field Fluctuations (STAFF) instruments on Clusters 3 and 4 revealed that the waves had a highly structured and periodic pattern, providing clear observational evidence about how they were generated. The data also revealed in detail their banded structure, the most remarkable example of these structures ever observed in space.
The spectral lines showed multiples of the frequencies of the circular motion of protons in the presence of a uniform magnetic field – the so-called proton gyrofrequency. The observations of the 'noise' emissions were, in this case, much more coherent and structured than the majority of plasma waves.


"The clear appearance of the regular spectral lines associated with the waves reminded me of a comb," says Professor Michael Balikhin from the University of Sheffield, UK, a scientific principal investigator on Cluster and joint lead author of the paper in the journal Nature Communications which describes the research.
"It's truly remarkable how nature managed to draw such clear, narrow, and periodic lines in space," adds Yuri Shprits of UCLA, currently a Visiting Associate Professor at MIT, who led the study together with Michael Balikhin.


The waves occurred very close to the equatorial plane of the planet's magnetic field – the geomagnetic equator.

Image
http://sci.esa.int/jump.cfm?oid=56143
seasmith
 
Posts: 2815
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: Earths Magnetic Field

Unread postby d3x0r » Wed Aug 05, 2015 8:42 am

As good a place as any; although I see this has been dead slightly more than a year. I see questions still unanswered, or quoting answers that cannot work.

I went searching today for an accurate model of the magnetic field outside of the earth, what is it's shape? Is it toroidal as one would expect around a sphere magnet?

http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images ... from_Swarm
Image

And no, the artist drawings I've seen and models of the solar winds where the field is 'squished' on one side is accurate.

Why does a magnetic field squish? Because of particles moving through it? (solar wind as proposed) Not on such a large scale surely. But instead, maybe an interaction with another magnet? I've certainly seen magnetic field deformations from putting two like poled magnets together.

Internal Dyanmo theory; Well, since there's obviously another external magnet near-by, an internal dynamo would quickly flip itself to align with that other field. Magnets like to be aligned in attracting mode, so a N-S maget will flip another to be S-N in parallel. Sure, the earth turns, but at 0.00064RPM it's doesn't exactly have a lot of gyroscopic character. Also, a magnetic field would have to be induced not just by iron spinning, but of a charged body moving... since the earth is generally neutral and doesn't have an abudnance of extra charges in outer crust areas, this is also not likely.

Induced Field from the nearby sun theory; A field induced in a metal object nearby will be in the opposite orientation of the originator and be also attracted. Between gravitational and magnetic forces being aligned, we'd surely never survive multi-billion years of orbit without crashing into the sun.

So this magnetic field must come from some even more removed source; a induced field from another greater source would make all bodies have magnetic poles in the same direction, so all north poles would be in constant opposition.

Another interesting note... magnetic fields fall off by the volume of space they cover (1/r^3) while gravity falls off at 1/r^2. This mans the two curves are not identical, and an interesting phenomenon can happen. When the distance from sun to earth gets larger, the magnetic repulsion fall off quicker and allow the gravitational attraction to play more of a role, drawing the earth back closer to the sun. Then as this approach closes the distance, the magnetic repulsion plays more of a factor. This puts the earth in nearly a stable trough of orbit. This also means that other large gravitational bodies like jupiter etc that occasionally play a significant role in the earth's direction will be corrected with time. There is certainly no way to create stable orbits with gravity alone.

2013 http://www.space.com/22729-voyager-1-sp ... space.html Voyager leaves the heliosphere; and finds an even larger magnetic field.

Having so much iron in it's core, the earth certainly has a larger magnetic field than other less iron/nickel rich planets in the system... not such a question about why one planet has more or less than another.

Asteroid belt is also stable for similar reasons.

But internal dynamo idea is as obsolete as the pangea theory.

Re: the sun's pole flips every 11 or so years? This is likely in how we observe the information about the pole... A approaching north pole looks exactly the same as a receding south pole to an inductor.

But; this means some interesting things... measuring the mass of the sun by the mass of the earth and moon's interactions is likely revealing a much lower value than it actually is supplying by gravity. I would expect that Nasa's stereo probes would reveal this. if anyone had actual information on their position rather than the java calculation applet.... but maybe not; maybe they are ferous enough that they won't have significant issues.

I would also reference the primer fields video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EPlyiW ... e&t=20m14s (link starts at 20:14 and is a minute or so to demonstrate) But not for the words he's speaking, but the demonstration of similar magnetic fields being induced on steel balls.. they all stay separate because they have like poles up and down...

Another note on the far above Uranus' rotation is 90 degrees from it's orbit, but it's magnetic field is 90 degrees to that, which would mean it's actually in-line with its oribit...

I did try a while ago to find a chart that showed the planets with their magnetic axis relative to each other; I found one that had both, but it was with all their rotational poles aligned and magnetic axis drawn to show they are separate, rather than the other way around... and not relative to their orbital planes...


------ (somewhat divergent)
How much force is actually required to keep a rotating body in oribit? Is it the same as the dead weight of the object at the end of a string? (I'll have to re-gather my thoughts on this one... in a gravity field (on earth) yes, inescapably? I don't remember if I disproved my theory)
The idea is that if a body is rotating, then in each instant, most of the particles of a body will already be going in the appropriate direction for the next instant of orbital direction, so only an infinitesimally small slice of the matter of the rotating body really needs to be accelerated in a new direction. This would mean that really the force the sun exerts on the earth is near zero in it's balance trough between magnetic repulsion and gravitational attraction; it's not needed to be zero, the scalars of the a/r^2 - b/r^3 can result in appropriate outputs... whatever the force is required.
d3x0r
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 12:42 am

Re: Earths Magnetic Field

Unread postby Maol » Fri Aug 07, 2015 8:37 pm

^^^^ :)
Maol
 
Posts: 299
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 1:40 pm

Re: Earths Magnetic Field

Unread postby comingfrom » Sat Aug 08, 2015 4:12 pm

since the earth is generally neutral and doesn't have an abudnance of extra charges in outer crust areas


My understanding is that the Earth, and maybe even all planetary bodies, are generally charged,
and that the outer crust areas of Earth are negatively charged.

Lightning discharges, for instance, are due to the potential difference between the positively charged ionosphere, and negatively charged crust.

How much force is actually required to keep a rotating body in oribit? Is it the same as the dead weight of the object at the end of a string?


If a stationary (relatively) planet was introduced into the Solar plane, (similar to D. LaPoint adding another steel ball to the area between his magnets), the new planet would gradually pick up momentum, starting rotation both on it's axis as well as around the Sun.

All the other planets' orbits would adjust themselves, to accommodate the new planet electrically.

We have to add force (thrust) to our satellites to keep them in orbit, because they have (relatively) so little mass, to be effected (towed) by the ambient magnetic field of the Solar System.

Just my opinions. If someone knows better, please correct me. :)
User avatar
comingfrom
 
Posts: 760
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: Earths Magnetic Field

Unread postby d3x0r » Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:00 pm

comingfrom wrote:
since the earth is generally neutral and doesn't have an abudnance of extra charges in outer crust areas


My understanding is that the Earth, and maybe even all planetary bodies, are generally charged,
and that the outer crust areas of Earth are negatively charged.

Lightning discharges, for instance, are due to the potential difference between the positively charged ionosphere, and negatively charged crust.

Yes... I was hesitant to state that argument... but 'ground' is generally 'neutral' so I'll have to do some more digging on that. I defiantly understand that proposed theory everything is charged; perhaps dissimilarly (craters and cavernous scarring)
http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary. ... +the+Earth
" The existence of a static negative charge on the earth’s surface (about 5.7 × 10^5 coulombs) indicates that these currents, on the average, are balanced."

but... being a conductor in a magnetic field with a rotation makes it a homopolar effect... not nessecarily a magnetic field generator effect.

"surface ranges from 25 to 65 microteslas" (hmm, wonder if somehow the charge is reverse calculated from that)


https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Natural ... _the_Earth
"The Earth is negatively charged, carrying 500,000 Coulombs (C) of electric charge (500 kC),[1] and is at 300,000 volts (V), 300 kV,[2] relative to the positively charged ionosphere. There is a constant flow of electricity, at around 1350 amperes (A) [approximately 1100 A][2], and resistance of the Earth's atmosphere is around 220 Ohms.[3] This gives a power output of around 400 megawatts (MW), which is ultimately regenerated by the power of the Sun that affects the ionosphere, as well as the troposphere, causing thunderstorms. The electrical energy stored in the Earth's atmosphere is around 150 gigajoules (GJ)."

that sounds like a lot... but 510 million square kilometers makes for a very dilute C/km^2 ... 1mC/km^2 ... can't see that making much of a magnetic field when it's C/s passing a point to be an Amp... and earth rotates .46km/sec... Hmm it's definitly starting to look reverse-calculated from magnetic field strength. At least as a surface charge; if the 500kC was spread through the volume of earth it would be very slight.

Like if I pick up a peice of earth and measure 'what is the charge of this' as in how many extra electrons is actually in it; a thing that's hard to measure from within the system. ... well then again if I pick up 2 rocks and hang them from strings they should repel each other from electrostatic, right? but then again I'd have to use a cubic kilometer of 'stone' to be at all measurable?

comingfrom wrote:
How much force is actually required to keep a rotating body in oribit? Is it the same as the dead weight of the object at the end of a string?


If a stationary (relatively) planet was introduced into the Solar plane, (similar to D. LaPoint adding another steel ball to the area between his magnets), the new planet would gradually pick up momentum, starting rotation both on it's axis as well as around the Sun.

All the other planets' orbits would adjust themselves, to accommodate the new planet electrically.

We have to add force (thrust) to our satellites to keep them in orbit, because they have (relatively) so little mass, to be effected (towed) by the ambient magnetic field of the Solar System.

Just my opinions. If someone knows better, please correct me. :)

well satellites wouldn't have a magnetic field of substance to balance the gravitational pull...
(which is blamed in wikipedia on atmospheric drag)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacecraft_propulsion
"They are also subject to drag from the thin atmosphere, so that to stay in orbit for a long period of time some form of propulsion is occasionally necessary to make small corrections (orbital stationkeeping).[2] Many satellites need to be moved from one orbit to another from time to time, and this also requires propulsion.[3] A satellite's useful life is over once it has exhausted its ability to adjust its orbit."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_station-keeping
"For spacecraft in a halo orbit around a Lagrangian point stationkeeping is even more fundamental as such an orbit is unstable; without an active control with thruster burns the smallest deviation in position/velocity would result in the spacecraft leaving the orbit completely.[1]"

was thinking that maybe the magnetic field wouldn't be so important since we had crafts in these lagrangian points which are supposed to be a balance of gravity from one body to another...

re: "the new planet would gradually pick up momentum, starting rotation both on it's axis as well as around the Sun." I'm not sure I see the basis of that statement...
d3x0r
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 12:42 am

Re: Earths Magnetic Field

Unread postby webolife » Mon Aug 31, 2015 2:12 pm

Here is a post I put to the Hemisphere Dichotomies thread; seemed like it should here somewhere, although a bit divergent from the conversation:
My view of Earth's catastrophic history doesn't follow either the Saturnian theory or Velikovsky per se , although I was somewhat inspired by the latter. There is plenty of evidence historically, geologically, and biblically, that astronomical encounters are responsible for or involved in events described in the biblical and other cultural creation/flood accounts. Regarding the hemisphere dichotomy, it is important not to oversimplify, as there are multiple "non-aligned" aspects of it which are difficult to harmonize:
1. The Pacific Basin, which is sometimes described as an impact basin for a planetary collision.
2. Alternately, the continental landmasses are replete with hundreds of astroblemes which notably may be identified with every major stratum in the [imagined] geologic column. Now possibly there are an equal number on the Pacific "side" of the planet which either have been erased by water action or simply not discovered yet...
3. The north-south dichotomy of land to ocean ratio, the southern hemisphere being more oceanic.
4. The dipolar magnetic field, which is less describable as a bar magnet than most of us were led to believe in our schooling, as depicted interestingly in this computer model:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_magnetic_field
While any or all of these dichotmomies may be attributable to astronomical/interplanetary encounters, it is difficult to find a single event or category of causation. However, [to Nick] I am also of the perspective that most of the geological column [say from Cambrian to Pliocene] may be attributed to a single related series of catastrophic events, occurring in a geologically short time frame. In addition, the so-called "reversals" of magnetism, especially those modeled along various seafloor spreading zones, may be due to a different cause related to bursts of volcanic activity during the episode of [rapid] continental drift. as is the case with small magnets, it seems possible to me and perhaps even likely that successive flows of lava will appear relatively reversed as a natural result of local magnetic field interactions.
In the distant future, when we have had more opportunities to explore the subsurface geologies of other worlds, it will be interesting to note whether other/all planetary bodies exhibit magnetic reversal zones...
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2532
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Geocorona and Aurasphere

Unread postby seasmith » Sun Mar 20, 2016 6:16 pm

~

For those here who continue to hold dear the concept of "empty space", here is a great visual showing a slice of space in our solar system.

http://www.bbc.com/future/bespoke/20140 ... teractive/


Locally, the extended magnetosphere/atmosphere is known as the Geocorona, but a more accurate term is probably the Aura-sphere; due the fact that current detection and mapping technologies for elevations (~100,000+ km) are still very basic.
[To member GaryN's thesis regarding UV, visual and IR wavelengths; the ISS is nestled well within earth's geocorona,
which extends beyond where gravity becomes very weak.]



Projecting back in time 10 or 12 ky, the whole aural envelope may have been more energized by events from outside and within (we know the Van Allen belts expand and constrict even today). Variations in day/night albedo and transmittance could have made for dim sun and bright polar stellations, but this last paragraph is pure conjectural lagniappe.

;)
seasmith
 
Posts: 2815
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: Geocorona and Aurasphere

Unread postby comingfrom » Tue Mar 22, 2016 12:24 am

Thank you, seasmith.

For a while I have suspected something is not right, and it is made very obvious in this interactive.

The International Space Station is at 420 km
At 500 km the Earth's gravity is 86%

Another gravity reading is given at 2600 km, where gravity is at 50%
And another at 6400 km, where gravity is down to 25%

So, how come astronauts experience complete weightlessness where Earth's gravity is still quite significant?

On the moon, where gravity is 16% that on earth, an astronaut can still fall down,
but at the ISS where gravity is over 86%, astronauts are weightless.

Can anyone explain, or point me to an explanation?
~Paul
User avatar
comingfrom
 
Posts: 760
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: Geocorona and Aurasphere

Unread postby nick c » Tue Mar 22, 2016 7:21 am

comingfrom wrote:So, how come astronauts experience complete weightlessness where Earth's gravity is still quite significant?

On the moon, where gravity is 16% that on earth, an astronaut can still fall down,
but at the ISS where gravity is over 86%, astronauts are weightless.
I think that you are confusing the pull of gravity with free fall. The two states are not mutually exclusive conditions. The ISS is subject to the force of the Earth's gravity. The Earth's gravitational pull is why they are orbiting the Earth. The feeling of weightlessness results from free fall. The astronauts are being pulled toward the Earth but their fall is following the curve of the Earth so that they never hit the ground. So the subjective feeling of weightlessness is a result of free fall. One can feel weightlessness in an airplane that goes into a dive, see the "Vomit Comet."
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2448
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Geocorona and Aurasphere

Unread postby webolife » Thu Mar 24, 2016 12:36 am

...or at the top of a roller coaster crest...

Orbital vectors are a combination of 1) gravitational/centropic, and 2) tangential == ie. angular momentum.
So the rapid forward "thrust" of the ISS balances the downward "push" of gravity, causing weightlessness.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2532
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Geocorona and Aurasphere

Unread postby jacmac » Thu Mar 24, 2016 3:30 pm

Webolife said:
So the rapid forward "thrust" of the ISS balances the downward "push" of gravity, causing weightlessness.


Not really. As nick said above, The ISS and the astronaut are both falling giving the feeling of weightlessness to the astronaut. The forward thrust of the ISS is why they miss the earth, and is not necessary for weightlessness. It is necessary to prevent weightlessness from ending SUDDENLY. !
jacmac
 
Posts: 583
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:36 pm

Re: Geocorona and Aurasphere

Unread postby seasmith » Sat Mar 26, 2016 11:23 am

~
Cross-disciplinary sessions, addressing electric currents in various regions of the Solar System, are foreseen
on:

Ring currents (e.g., at Earth and at the giant planets, influence of planet–moon interaction, etc.)·

Current sheets (e.g., magnetotail current sheets, coronal current sheets, heliospheric current sheet)·

Field-aligned currents (including M-I coupling at Earth and other planets, corona-photosphere coupling)·

Small-scale / filamentary currents (e.g., on auroral field lines, in turbulent regions, etc.)·

Energetics of currents (incl. dynamos, Poynting flux, and dissipation)



http://chapman.agu.org/spacecurrents/program/schedule/
seasmith
 
Posts: 2815
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests