"Sunspots" in Earth's Core?

John Schutkeker wrote:


It is a COINCIDENCE that both reversal periods happen to have the number
eleven in them, eleven years vs. eleven thousand years. And I don't
know who mentioned the Bermuda Triangle, but it wasn't me, and it never
will be me. That's just plain stupid.


http://mason.gmu.edu/~aweese/bookbag.../reversals.gif

Dear John Schutkeker:

"John Schutkeker" wrote in
message
. 17.102...
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N: dlzc1 D:cox
wrote in
news:2ueWe.22911$sx2.22413@fed1read02:

"Theory"? You have a mathematical model also?

Not just me. Zirin has a mathematical model, because
magnetic buoyancy is associated with alfven waves.

Random word association?

Not *just* metal. Not a "conductor", from what
measurements I have seen of surface magma.

The core is iron, buddy boy, not magma.

Really? How did you manage to get the nickel, silicon, and so on
out?

Which has *zero* to do with global pole reversal.

Not according to Tajima.

Got a citation? Google yields nothing here...

Any evidence of distortions on the local magnetic field
near-newly active magma pockets?

At the core/mantle boundary?

At/near the surface of the Earth. Where we can be.

The distortions of the Sun's magnetic field due to sun spots and
CME extend far and wide.

And?

I think this will make an excellent research project.

OK.

It is a COINCIDENCE that both reversal periods
happen to have the number eleven in them, eleven
years vs. eleven thousand years.

... or eleven million years, or 110 million years, as long as
I
state "11" together, I can keep the artificial association
going.

What part of the word COINCIDENCE don't you understand?

So you don't have a citation for the "11,000", and you are only
trolling? Because the last recorded Earth magnetic pole reversal
was *much* more than "11,000" years ago.

David A. Smith

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in
news:zmrWe.253224$E95.155898@fed1read01:

Really? How did you manage to get the nickel, silicon, and so on
out?

Nickel is a conductor, and although the silicon is a contaminant, it
will only reduce conductivity, not kill it. In fact I have to thank you
for offering that as a good way to explain the factor of 20,000
difference from the sun's reversal period.

I was thinking density, but now that you mention it, the sun's fluid is
pretty thick, too. Maybe not too close to earth's liquid iron to
account for 20,000.

Which has *zero* to do with global pole reversal.

Not according to Tajima.

Got a citation? Google yields nothing here...

Either Phys Rev B or Phys Fluids. Sadly I've lost the paper, but it was
ca. '85.

Any evidence of distortions on the local magnetic field
near-newly active magma pockets?

At the core/mantle boundary?

At/near the surface of the Earth. Where we can be.

The distortions of the Sun's magnetic field due to sun spots and
CME extend far and wide.

And?

I think this will make an excellent research project.

OK.

When I post, I'm posting ideas for new work, not reiterations of prior
art. Prior art is good, but we can't build our research careers on it.
Research is done by starting with a partially formed idea and finishing
it. Typically the "formation quotient" of a new idea is extremely low.

My PhD project looked pretty stupid when I first started it, and so did
I, because I made a LOT of beginner's errors. But after five years, the
wrinkles are almost ironed out, and soon it will be ready for prime
time.

The sun-like spots project is my attempt to start looking towards a
post-doc.

It is a COINCIDENCE that both reversal periods
happen to have the number eleven in them, eleven
years vs. eleven thousand years.

... or eleven million years, or 110 million years, as long as
I
state "11" together, I can keep the artificial association
going.

What part of the word COINCIDENCE don't you understand?

So you don't have a citation for the "11,000", and you are only
trolling? Because the last recorded Earth magnetic pole reversal
was *much* more than "11,000" years ago.

In the OP, I said IIRC, and that was the first phrase deleted by all the
criticizers. I know I should have been a good boy and looked it up, but
the number is a lot less important that the fact that it exists and has
been measured. I didn't expect that leaving out a small detail would
cause a firestorm. In fact, Wormley just posted a note saying it is 0.2
- 0.25 Myr.

Sam Wormley wrote in
news:FhrWe.331833$x96.29928@attbi_s72:

As a matter of geological record, the Earth's magnetic field has
undergone numerous reversals of polarity. We can see this in the
magnetic patterns found in volcanic rocks, especially those
recovered from the ocean floors. In the last 10 million years,
there have been, on average, 4 or 5 reversals per million years. At
other times in Earth's history, for example during the Cretaceous
era, there have been much longer periods when no reversals
occurred. Reversals are *not* predictable and are certainly *not*
periodic in nature. Hence we can only speak about the average
reversal interval.

Thanks for filling in the detail I neglected to google. What's your
specialty?

John Schutkeker wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote in
news:FhrWe.331833$x96.29928@attbi_s72:


As a matter of geological record, the Earth's magnetic field has
undergone numerous reversals of polarity. We can see this in the
magnetic patterns found in volcanic rocks, especially those
recovered from the ocean floors. In the last 10 million years,
there have been, on average, 4 or 5 reversals per million years. At
other times in Earth's history, for example during the Cretaceous
era, there have been much longer periods when no reversals
occurred. Reversals are *not* predictable and are certainly *not*
periodic in nature. Hence we can only speak about the average
reversal interval.


Thanks for filling in the detail I neglected to google. What's your
specialty?

I'm more renaissance that specialty these days... And I can read and
learn.

Sam Wormley wrote in news:h1LWe.333913$x96.55115
@attbi_s72:

John Schutkeker wrote:

Thanks for filling in the detail I neglected to google. What's your
specialty?

I'm more renaissance that specialty these days... And I can read and
learn.

Are you freelance or tenured?

I can't believe those guys went after me for leaving out one stinking
number, even though I portected myself with the IIRC qualifier. What a
bunch of angry guys. I expected "Uncle" Al Schwartz's ridicule, but not so
many others.

So I got off my ass and looked up those numbers, and got data that confirm
your Wikipedia citation, but over a longer time. hyperphysics.phy-
astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/magearth.html confirms that the field has
reversed poles 71 times over 171 Myr.

That's a "period" of 0.240 Myr, which is 20x my original guess, but in the
same regima as your data, but with tighter error bars.

John Schutkeker wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote in news:h1LWe.333913$x96.55115
@attbi_s72:


John Schutkeker wrote:


Thanks for filling in the detail I neglected to google. What's your
specialty?


I'm more renaissance that specialty these days... And I can read and
learn.


Are you freelance or tenured?

I can't believe those guys went after me for leaving out one stinking
number, even though I portected myself with the IIRC qualifier. What a
bunch of angry guys. I expected "Uncle" Al Schwartz's ridicule, but not so
many others.

So I got off my ass and looked up those numbers, and got data that confirm
your Wikipedia citation, but over a longer time. hyperphysics.phy-
astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/magearth.html confirms that the field has
reversed poles 71 times over 171 Myr.

That's a "period" of 0.240 Myr, which is 20x my original guess, but in the
same regima as your data, but with tighter error bars.

Research Scientist and Principal Investigator at Iowa State University
twenty some years... Now I'm teaching astronomy and developing
educational materials. I can't say I'm on fewer committees... as I'm
on five (chairing three) none of which are at Iowa State.

I'm one of the people who jumped on you for saying "It is a COINCIDENCE
that both reversal periods happen to have the number eleven in them, eleven
years vs. eleven thousand years", for you implied authority in that eleven
thousand years figure even though the original post contained "IIRC".

But that's all behind us now.

This newsgroup is fortunate to have Uncle Al participate as he is better
(even than his metaphorical "Bull**** Meter" which gets uncreated from time
to time) at sorting through the crap.

Why these newsgroups attract so many cranks and trolls is still somewhat
surprising to me... but cranks, compared to a face to face "discussions",
can avoid bloodied noses in a virtual discussion here.

Sam Wormley wrote in news:4cVWe.335771$_o.13024
@attbi_s71:

Research Scientist and Principal Investigator at Iowa State University
twenty some years... Now I'm teaching astronomy and developing
educational materials. I can't say I'm on fewer committees... as I'm
on five (chairing three) none of which are at Iowa State.

Since all the curricula are on-line these days, why develop new course
materials when you can steal them from other schools' web sites? Whenever
I want the state of the art, I just go to MIT's web site for the course I'm
interested in.

Was Atanasoff at ISU or UI? My last mentor (sadly not Atanasoff!) went to
ISU, and it's a good school which goes unnoticed in the greater science
world at large.

John Schutkeker wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote in news:4cVWe.335771$_o.13024
@attbi_s71:


Research Scientist and Principal Investigator at Iowa State University
twenty some years... Now I'm teaching astronomy and developing
educational materials. I can't say I'm on fewer committees... as I'm
on five (chairing three) none of which are at Iowa State.


Since all the curricula are on-line these days, why develop new course
materials when you can steal them from other schools' web sites? Whenever
I want the state of the art, I just go to MIT's web site for the course I'm
interested in.

Was Atanasoff at ISU or UI? My last mentor (sadly not Atanasoff!) went to
ISU, and it's a good school which goes unnoticed in the greater science
world at large.

Atanasoff was at ISU

On 9/16/05 15:05, in article
2, "John Schutkeker"
wrote:

Sam Wormley wrote in
news:FhrWe.331833$x96.29928@attbi_s72:

As a matter of geological record, the Earth's magnetic field has
undergone numerous reversals of polarity. We can see this in the
magnetic patterns found in volcanic rocks, especially those
recovered from the ocean floors. In the last 10 million years,
there have been, on average, 4 or 5 reversals per million years. At
other times in Earth's history, for example during the Cretaceous
era, there have been much longer periods when no reversals
occurred. Reversals are *not* predictable and are certainly *not*
periodic in nature. Hence we can only speak about the average
reversal interval.

Thanks for filling in the detail I neglected to google. What's your
specialty?

Earthspots... The dipole reversal process isn't simply a disappearance and
then reappearance of a dipole magnetic field. The underlying phenomenal
aspect of a star is a large scale standing wave boson... Like a Del X E or
Del X H vector field. The Del X E vector field should display the
characteristics of a magnetic dipole while the Del X H should display the
characteristic signature of an electric dipole. The sun during solar
maximum develops large scale polar coronal holes which are indicative of
large scale electric field gradients in the polar regions. Voila..the sun
during solar maximum ... Is just as it should be if its primary flux loop
system as a standing wave boson was in the Del X H vector field mode.

The Earth's EMT (electromagnetotoroid a.k.a as the Earth's own primary
standing wave boson) also can be stimulated into a mode change to the Del X
H vector field mode and then it should behave like the Sun's EMT producing
large scale magnetic loop systems that should emerge and be present on the
surface of the planet. Such loop systems, if they should collide and
collapse like similar systems on the sun would likely be accompanied by the
sudden and catastrophic release of tremendous amounts of energy. Where such
loops intersected the surface one should expect intense gravitational charge
separation effects that would perhaps be manifested in processes that would
prevent the emission of photons... ''

C. Cagle