NOVA's "Magnetic Storm" and CellWell1 & CellWell2

Tonight on PBS was a Nova program about the magnetic field created
from the Earth's molten iron core producing a magnetic dynamo where
the electric current created from the motion of the molten iron
increases the magnetic field which in turn increases the electric
current.

I was rather surprized to hear that it took 50 years before acceptance
of "reverse polarity". Surprized because let us consider the Earth a
machine. And unless the machine is near perfect with few blemishes
that the reverse polarity would be a commonplace occurrence because of
the Earth's many flaws from that of
perfection. That the sloshing around of molten iron in the Earth's
core should be a crude happening and thus many chaos attractors
involved in the molten iron to form. And since so many chaotic
attractors that reverse polarity commonplace and so why the acceptance
took 50 years. Some 50 years ago if a physicists were to get up in
front of a crowd of geologists at an important convention and related
the above that the iron core would be full of chaos-attractors that
reverse-polarity should be commonplace.

Excellent hour program this was for it left remaining many questions
of profound interest. To name a few:
(1) what is the relationship, mathematically, of the Earth axis of
rotation and where the "magnetic northpole exists"? I suspect the axis
of rotation is a direct relationship to the magnetic north and the
main cause of chaos attractors. Example: I doubt the Earth ever
experienced a long period of time where the axis was nearly 90 degrees
opposite the magneticpole to be what maybe called magneticeast. So has
anyone in physics or geology or math related the existence of the
Earth axis to the whereabouts of magneticpole. Keep in mind the above
stresses "a long period of time"

(2) I wonder if there is biological evidence that when these
reversepolarities took place whether any species extinction coincided?

(3) And apparently reversepolarity probably had little to no affect
upon primate evolution and especially humanlike evolution going back
10 million years. We cannot say that Homo habilis just for an example
was extincted due to magnetic shield loss.

(4) If our present day polarity has lasted for 780,000 years and the
average lasting is only 200,000 years then why or what reason has this
period been so long lived?? I believe I have an answer for that from
my theory of CellWell1
and CellWell2.

(5) Does anyone know if the moons of Jupiter, in particular Europa
which is believed to have oceans of water, does anyone know if Europa
has a molten iron core and whether it has a magnetic field of
considerable size??

(6) The object in our SolarSystem that is the largest internal
magneticfield is Jupiter. So does Jupiter have a huge molten iron
core? And is there some means or method of finding out if Jupiter has
experienced magneticreversal?? Jupiter as well as every other astro
body would be imperfect enough for the molten iron to slosh around
chaotically from time to time and especially given the precession of
axis to further the chaos. So is there some means of tackling whether
Jupiter has had magnetic reversal.

I am glad for this opportunity to review my theory of CellWell1 and
CellWell2. Those of you who have followed me in the 1990s recognize
that in an AtomTotality theory that the Universe has layerings of ages
like tree rings or like onion layers and that is why I coined the name
CellWell1 and CellWell2 for our SolarSystem. Because in an
AtomTotality our present newest layer of the Universe is the Plutonium
AtomTotality which is about 5 billion years old accreted new onto the
older AtomTotality of the Uranium AtomTotality which is about 15 to 20
billion years old and we can go backwards through all the other
AtomTotalities.

That is why Freedman gets an age of 8 billion years old and Sandage
gets an age of 20 billion years old because they are measuring age in
different layers of the Universe.

But not only the age of stars and galaxies are of different
AtomTotalities but our own SolarSystem has different ages. The most
recent newcomers to our SolarSystem are the gas giants and their
moons. They grow from the accretion of "cosmic rays" and Jupiter is
the most vigorous grower because most cosmic rays
end up inside of Jupiter. So the gasgiants comprise the most recent
age in our SolarSystem and I call them CellWell2. The gas giants are
about 5 billion years old coinciding with the "minibigbang" that was
the PlutoniumAtomTotality onto the older UraniumAtomTotality. The Sun
and Mercury, Venus, Earth Mars date back to the older
UraniumAtomTotality and are anywhere from 15 billion years old to 20
billion years old. And they looked very much different than now. Earth
some 15 billion years ago was like Europa to Jupiter is now. Earth was
a satellite to a larger planet which got swallowed up by the Sun and
the Sun was probably not a star until about 10 to 15 billion years
ago.

So, from watching this program and learning that Mars craters of
Argyle and Hellas (excuse the spelling) were 4 billion years old with
no magnetic inheritance suggests support of the CellWell1 and
CellWell2 theory.

What I need to find out is whether Europa or the other moons of
Jupiter have a similar background history as what Mars seems to have.
For it would indicate strongly that both Earth and Mars at one time in
their ancient past, some 15 billion years ago were moons of some gas
giant which we will call Zeus. This Zeus gas giant would eventually be
swallowed by our protoSun but the moons saved or spared from
collision. And before Mars reached its present day orbit, it had
teeming life and oceans. Same goes for Mercury and Venus.

Same goes for probably most of the moons of Jupiter and the other gas
giants in that they also will have teeming life and oceans and then
their gas giant planet become swallowed up to form a star. Many of the
moons will also be swallowed up.
And our SolarSystem will then have twin stars and not a solo Sun.

Many of the exoplanets discovered in the late 1990s show evidence of
huge planets circling close to their solo star. That is the common
evolution of most every star in the Universe in that they start out
solo and with time in each new AtomTotality layer gas giants are
created and then swallowed together to form a twin star SolarSystem.

Summary: the most important hunt from this TV program is to see
whether Europa and the other moons of Jupiter have any sort of
resemblance to Mars. Does Europa have a liquid iron core and if not
how much more mass to give it a liquid ironcore. And what extent of a
magnetic field??

Archimedes Plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

I was rather surprized to hear that it took 50 years before acceptance
of "reverse polarity".

The evidence that clinched it was the correspondence of the age of seafloor
magnetic stripes to land rock measurements. Land rocks are subject to a
large number of false magnetizations- lightning strikes, chemical weathering,
mechanical burial stress, heating, tectonic reorientation-
that it took decades to sort these out.
When I measured rocks, we'd routinely account for a dozen common effects,
with dozens of others reported in the literature. Its just that the
preponderance of evidence- now thousands of seafloor magnetic tracks with
over a million land rocks- started to agree by the late 1960s.

I am not fully convinced that Nova's claim we are in a reversal now.
Perhaps we are just in a period of "normal" variation, which can be
between 20 and 100 microTeslas according to the pottery measurements
(shown in the Nova show). I view the field as kind of a "flickering
flame" that tests stability now and then, with a catstrophic reversal
rarely. Nova showed Glatzimier's "lava lamp" numerical animations of domain
fluctuations during the reversal period. However, the same movies between
reversals also show fluctuations to a lesser degree.

(rick++) wrote in message . com...
I was rather surprized to hear that it took 50 years before acceptance
of "reverse polarity".

The evidence that clinched it was the correspondence of the age of seafloor
magnetic stripes to land rock measurements. Land rocks are subject to a
large number of false magnetizations- lightning strikes, chemical weathering,
mechanical burial stress, heating, tectonic reorientation-
that it took decades to sort these out.
When I measured rocks, we'd routinely account for a dozen common effects,
with dozens of others reported in the literature. Its just that the
preponderance of evidence- now thousands of seafloor magnetic tracks with
over a million land rocks- started to agree by the late 1960s.

I am not fully convinced that Nova's claim we are in a reversal now.
Perhaps we are just in a period of "normal" variation, which can be
between 20 and 100 microTeslas according to the pottery measurements
(shown in the Nova show). I view the field as kind of a "flickering
flame" that tests stability now and then, with a catstrophic reversal
rarely. Nova showed Glatzimier's "lava lamp" numerical animations of domain
fluctuations during the reversal period. However, the same movies between
reversals also show fluctuations to a lesser degree.


Okay, thanks for that information on the history. I was suspicious
that the community was ignoring or adverse to the initial discovery
and in hate of it as
to why it took 50 years to become accepted. But it seems that was not
the case,
rather instead it took 50 years to mount the supporting evidence to
make it "beyond a shadow of doubt"

But thinking about the current discrepancy of a 780,000 years of no
reversal when 200,000 years is the normal interval. I wonder if there
were other periods of nearly a 1 million years with no polarity
reversal.

If I had to make a guess as to why a 780,000 years when the average is
200,000 if those are reliable and accurate numbers, then I would place
the guess onto the Earth precession periodicity. I am guessing that
the Earth precession of its current position of its axis at some 23
degrees is perhaps its widest latitude. That axis rotation is directly
connected to polarity reversal periodicity. So that when Earth has the
longest period of no polarity reverse coincides with Earth's greatest
amount of precession.

When Earth precessed little, then the polarity reversal comes in about
a 200,000 year period. When Earth makes its largest precession swing
then the polarity reversal has its greatest time period which is close
to 1 million years.

So, can some astronomer or geologist tell me what is the widest swing
of Earth precession?? Is it about 23 degrees and does it take about 1
million years?

I would be awfully surprized if the Earth precession of its axis is
not Directly Related to the magnetic field reversal.

Archimedes Plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Theres a 33 million year constant period during the Cretaceous.
Perhaps a similar one during the Jurassic.
As you go back in time the rock record is more sparse.

Over billions of years there may have been times when the core may not have
been segregated from the rocks, or mantle convention and plate tectonics
not turned on yet. But the above times were practically "last week"
on the Earths time scale.

(rick++) wrote in message . com...
Theres a 33 million year constant period during the Cretaceous.
Perhaps a similar one during the Jurassic.
As you go back in time the rock record is more sparse.

Over billions of years there may have been times when the core may not have
been segregated from the rocks, or mantle convention and plate tectonics
not turned on yet. But the above times were practically "last week"
on the Earths time scale.

I did some checking into precession. Apparently precession is not what
I wanted. I guess I wanted just Earth tilt and its spinning on its
axis. And the variation I was able to find is that Earth varies from
22 degress tilt to that of 24 degrees tilt. So I guess we are headed
for the 24 degree tilt since at present we are at 23.7 degree tilt.
The tilt cycle seems to be about 20,000 years.

There was a 100,000 year cycle in Earth eccentricity, but cannot
envision how that would relate to the Earth core.

To me, the daily spinning of Earth on its axis should directly relate
to the liquidironcore. In that the spin on axis is like a spoon
stirring a coffee cup.
More better, like a centrifuge of the liquidironcore.

Please forget all I said about precession for it is tilt and the spin
of Earth that I mean. I believe there is a direct math relationship
with the spin of Earth on axis and the amount of time to
reversepolarity.

I also believe there is a feedback loop between spin on axis and that
of the flow of liquid iron core. No doubt there are "convection
currents" as flow in the core
but believe a relationship of the flow of the core and the spin on
axis are connected.

Question: are the spins of most planets and their moons in our solar
system such that they are about perpendicular to the plane of
revolution around the Sun give or take 23 degrees? That is are there
any planets or their moons that have a axis of rotation parallel to
the plane of revolution around the Sun?

Question: it seems to me that a astro bodies spin on axis is a good
clue as to the birth process of the object. Anomalies in spin axis
suggest violent past history or history that is abnormal. The Nebular
Dust Cloud theory would imply that all astro bodies in the solarsystem
have nearly identical spin axis, apart from the smaller objects that
may have been hit in a collision and altered their original spin axis.
And if memory serves me correctly, few of the planets have identical
spin axis.

Archimedes Plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

"Archimedes Plutonium" wrote in message
om...
(rick++) wrote in message
. com...
Theres a 33 million year constant period during the Cretaceous.
Perhaps a similar one during the Jurassic.
As you go back in time the rock record is more sparse.

Over billions of years there may have been times when the core may not
have
been segregated from the rocks, or mantle convention and plate tectonics
not turned on yet. But the above times were practically "last week"
on the Earths time scale.


No guys... The earth goes through a Ice Age...
Poles get really heavy from all the ice and
the equator gets light because all the water
is frozen at the poles... When it reaches
a certain amount the earth flips over on its side ..
like an off balanced top...

That's all there is to it......

Thought Experiment: let us take a cup and pretend it is a scaled down Earth and let us take the liquid
content as the Earth's molten liquid core. In this scaled down model we need some liquid that imitates
molten iron for it is too dangerous for our experiment. I need some liquid that has the viscosity of
molten iron. I am sure some chemist can find a liquid with a viscosity to match molten iron in a cup. Let
us say it is water. Now I need a spin on the cup to match the Earth's spin
on its axis.

Question for physics: it seems that spin of a planet is more secure and lasts much longer of its integrity
than does the orbital revolution of a planet. Given the two, apparently the revolution degenerates much
quicker than ever the spin. Can a physicist provide a simple reason for why that is true. That angular
momentum or linear momentum degenerate so much faster than does spin.

Anyway, getting back to the Thought Experiment. So we have a cup that is a scaled down model of planet
Earth with its inside a liquid that mimics Earth's
molten iron core and it has a spin to imitate the actual spin of Earth. So how much of a centrifuge effect
happens to the liquid? And can there be enough chaos attractors to make the liquid circulate inside the
cup to mimic a reverse
polarity?

I believe so. And it says that Convection currents are rather irrelevant. But it does need another
condition.

Condition: that the molten liquid iron core of Earth is not solely iron we are talking about. It must be a
large abundance of some other metals or metal alloys such as nickel, copper, perhaps even mercury and
lead.

So, now, if our cup with liquid water is spun to mimic Earth, and now we remove the water and add
something like 50% water and 50% orange seeds and then spin the cup. What happens is that there is a
centrifuge effect and the seeds migrate from top to bottom and back to top and repeat in a cycle.

So, I think the periodicity of the Earth magnetic pole reversal is caused by the Spin of the Earth on its
axis and secondly, because the molten liquid iron core is not 100% iron but that the heavier metals such
as nickel, copper, mercury and lead comprise perhaps 40% and iron the other 60%. And because of the
differences of these metals that the flow migration of these metals from top to bottom and back again
results in a magnetic field reversal.

So the two things (1) Earth spin on axis (2) the core is two or more metals and not just iron alone,
create a condition in the core that is a centrifuge-- mind you spherical centrifuge -- in which the up and
down back to up motion of the heavier metals causes a magnetic field reversal.

I believe the convection currents are not source of polarity reversal and convection currents are to
chaotic and not able to explain the cycles. The centrifuge effect of various metals explains the cyclical
character of polarity reversal.

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

In sci.astro Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
Tonight on PBS was a Nova program about the magnetic field created
from the Earth's molten iron core producing a magnetic dynamo where
the electric current created from the motion of the molten iron
increases the magnetic field which in turn increases the electric
current.

Of course, the theory of a "molten iron core" is just that; A theory.
I've seen little proof that there is actually molten iron sloshing
around down there. And if there is, how exactly did the iron separate
from the rock etc that usually spews out of volcanos? The only problem
is that the existence of the earth's magnetic field rather limits
speculation and alternative theories are scarce.

Nova, I've noticed lately has become a spokesman for traditional
scientific dogma. They make little effort to provide any alternatives
to the party line. Let's at least be thankful that we didn't have to
listen once again to how Newton "explained" gravity and how "all of
electromagnetics" can be calculated from Maxwell's four simple
equations. (As we did in the recent program on strings) Feh.

I was rather surprized to hear that it took 50 years before acceptance
of "reverse polarity". Surprized because let us consider the Earth a
machine. And unless the machine is near perfect with few blemishes
that the reverse polarity would be a commonplace occurrence because of
the Earth's many flaws from that of
perfection.

That the sloshing around of molten iron in the Earth's
core should be a crude happening and thus many chaos attractors
involved in the molten iron to form. And since so many chaotic
attractors that reverse polarity commonplace and so why the acceptance
took 50 years. Some 50 years ago if a physicists were to get up in
front of a crowd of geologists at an important convention and related
the above that the iron core would be full of chaos-attractors that
reverse-polarity should be commonplace.

I don't know why you'd be surprised. The rejection of radical
new ideas has been a hallmark of official science forever. I
mean, even Ohm who proposed a totally simple relation and even
provided the experiments to prove it was booted out of his university
for doing so. Hell, Even Newton had to publish Principia privately.
Really open minded...no? Shame upon science!

But all that aside. I find even given a molten iron core, I doubt
that there is a whole lot of "sloshing" going on! First off,
planetary rotations tend to be reasonably stable and there would
be a HUGE amount of inertia in such a core. But if you've ever
played with self-exited dynamos, you'd know that it takes VERY
few perturbations to cause things to change. These devices not only
can start in either polarity, they tend get rather usnstable as
output drops. So given external perturbations which could be
simply gravitational effects of other bodies and the like
as well as internal chaos-attractors, as you term it, in the
core itself, it seems a very reasonable theory that if the
system were to go into a cycle of lowering output (as we seem to
bee presently) that there would be a strong possiblity of a total
polarity reversal.

So the bottom line here is that this theory is reasonable if
unproved, but the fact that it was rejected for 50 years
means that other interesting supporting data (such as the
extinction of species) wasn't bothered to be looked for.
Hence science dogma has placed science behind the curve
once again. But, since we seem to have the possiblity
of another reversal soon, we earthlings may soon have the
opportunity to observe first hand the physical effects of
such reversals. (And I STRONGLY suspect it will go WAY
beyond a few cases of cancer and pretty lights in the
skys over London as the program suggested. For starters
we could add the total disruption of all communications...
not such a minor thing in a modern society)

bjacoby

The idea of magnetic reversals gained acceptance through the accumulation of
evidence. It was previously rejected because the evidence was insufficient.
This is exactly the way science is supposed to work. Extinctions can be
caused by other factors, and, AFAIK, most if not all major extinctions are
still explained by other causes. I only saw the end of the Nova show, so I
can't comment on the information presented there, but I doubt that any
serious geophysicist thinks the iron core is "sloshing around."
Differentiation of the Earth's components occurred early in the Earth's
history, and this has been generally accepted for a long time. The core is
thousands of miles below the crust, which is where volcanoes occur. This
stuff separated due to gravity when the Earth was mostly in a molten state.
The crust is mostly composed of lighter rocks, and the mantle and core of
heavier rocks. The existence of an iron core is the best explanation of the
Earth's magnetic field, its mass, and seismic data.
--
Curtis Croulet
Temecula, California