To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: The Global Electric Circuit
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > News discussions > Space & Earth Sciences News

am_Unition
15th August 2007 - 02:20 AM
For the first post I will kill off the notion of "coincidental earthquakes".

Here's a story about a 5.3 Richter scale quake centered around a point about 2 miles inland (check Google Earth 20 miles south of Hilo, Hawaii) from one of the closest points on shore to Hurricane Flossie at the time of the quake. There wasn't a volcanic event to trigger this, I don't believe.

The article: http://www.physorg.com/news106330787.html

Hawaii island has many earthquakes a year, but most of them are too small to be felt, only recorded by instruments. A 5.3 is fairly notable.


Even more funny is an article from a few years ago, when I happened to stumble upon a story concerning a meteor, quake, and a power outage - all within 10 minutes of each other. Supposedly coincidence... it was only a 3.3 quake though.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/215845_outage14.html


1) I would like to propose that these events are not unrelated. While I accept that there are regular random occurrences of earthquakes, I think the global electric circuit has a lot to do with this. One example I can find quickly is a chart in this PDF about atmospheric ionization and galactic cosmic ray flux. Check page 4 and the chart titled "Forcing by Space Particle Fluxes" -

http://www.utdallas.edu/physics/pdf/Atmos_060302.pdf

2) In the tropic latitudes, it depicts deep convective clouds as the sole upward current carriers, with higher latitudes varying in downward current flow, related to the amount of cloud cover. Anyone who knows layman's meteorology can tell you that hurricanes are the textbook definition of "deep convective clouds". There is obviously a large upward electricity transfer taking place, from Flossie, for example.

3) These electric currents are transfered up into the ionosphere, like the diagram shows, roughly centered around an altitude of 120 km. In the case of the meteor able to produce such a noticeable light show (although it was a full an hour and a half after sunset), there is some serious ionosphere interaction taking place. Here's an abstract from some Brazil scientists studying ionospheric waves produced by meteor showers -

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994PhDT.........1P

4) In either case, from hurricane electricity contributions or large waves from significant meteorites, there is some charge flux and movement, obviously inducing small electromagnetic field variations. Ionosphere interaction with the mantle and lithosphere below the earth's crust is another known phenomenon. The high temperatures/pressures metallic content allow the mantle to have plasma-like properties, letting charges move freely... you know the drill. So these free charges in turn react to changes and flux in the magnetosphere/ionosphere system above it, obviously creating forces and flux in the magma contained in the mantle.


Just found this: http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/IAGA2005/01...005-A-01340.pdf


QUOTE
from http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/IAGA2005/01340/IAGA2005-A-01340.pdf :

The atmosphere and ionosphere include non-uniform charge distributions during the earthquake activities.  These charge distributions move irregularly when an activity is scheduled for an earthquake.  The mediums over the earth change to domains where irregular transportations of non-uniform electric charges are observed; therefore, the electromagnetism in the plasma environ, which moves irregularly and contains non-uniform charge distributions, must be revisited.  These cases of charge distributions are called irregular and non-uniform plasma.  We call it seismo-plasma if an irregular and non-uniform plasma defines an actual earthquake activity.  Similar interpretations occur during meteorological activities.  We call it meteo-plasma if an irregular and non-uniform plasma defines an uncommon meteorological activity.


Well, I wish I could have found that paper two hours ago...


5) The power outage experienced after the meteor could also be a direct result of electric flux in the heavens above, created from the waves (and possible particle interactions taking place?) of an impacting meteorite. I'm not 100% if this would be possible for an event the size of a large meteorite though, but it's a well documented issue during solar storms -

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/eiskappenman.html


How will we know when it is coincidence, then? IS there coincidence amongst geomagetic events? Will we some day have a working model able to accurately predict all geo-related activity?

Your thoughts are welcome smile.gif
am_Unition
16th August 2007 - 07:24 PM
Concerning the new article about the earth's core composition and molecular structures -

http://www.physorg.com/news106488564.html


This is one of the most exciting articles that has been published recently, if only to me. The thread that drew me into this forum discussed related issues, mainly dealing with solar cycles and climatic correlations. Link -

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=15049&st=15


William Astley, a name I find on various physics forum sites and sometimes in online climate article comments, was the creater of the above thread. One entry in particular directly applies to this recently published study about our core models.

QUOTE
William Astley :

...The following is more information concerning unexplained geomagnetic field changes. (Comment: The cyclic geomagnetic field changes are hypothesized to drive the glacial/interglacial cycle. These series of comments provides the data of how the geomagnetic field has changed in the past and outlines fundamental problems with the standard core hypothesis, which shows the gap between observations and the limations of the geodynamic mechanism to generate the geomagnetic field changes observed. At the end of these series of comments, the solar cycle changes will be directly linked to the geomagnetic field changes.)

The following are two papers that discuss geomagnetic field changes that are roughly 300,000 times faster, than the fastest possible field change, if the geomagnetic field is created by self generation, in the earth’s core.

1) Core Can Not Generate Very Rapid Geomagnetic Field Changes
From the standpoint of how quickly and why the earth’s core would change so quickly it is currently believed that there are no physically possible mechanisms in the core that could create the geomagnetic field changes observed. The standard geodynamic core models show the geomagnetic reversals should take place over a couple of thousand years, not a few days.

Another hurdle for the core generating rapid field changes on the earth’s surface is: As the earth’s mantle is slightly conductive, very rapid magnetic field changes will generate a back EMF in earth’s mantle, which will create electric currents in the mantle. The mantle electric currents will oppose a rapid core generated magnetic field change. A magnetic field change of the rapidity and magnitude, described in the next two papers, therefore could not pass from the core to the earth’s surface.

2) Fundamental Problems with Core Model
There are a number of first order problems that geophysicists have found that question if the earth’s core is capable of generating the geomagnetic field. (See heat flux problem end of this comment.)

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v374/...s/374687a0.html

“New evidence for extraordinarily rapid change of the geomagnetic field during a reversal” R. S. Coe et al, Nature, April 2002

“Palaeomagnetic results from lava flows recording a geomagnetic polarity reversal at Steens Mountain, Oregon suggest the occurrence of brief episodes of astonishingly rapid field change of six degrees per day. The evidence is large, systematic variations in the direction of remanent magnetization as a function of the temperature of thermal demagnetization and of vertical position within a single flow, which are most simply explained by the hypothesis that the field was changing direction as the flow cooled.”


http://www.geo.edu.ro/~paleomag/PDF/00-180-225.pdf

“The tectonic and geomagnetic significance of paleomagnetic observations from volcanic rocks from central Afar, Africa” Gary D. Acton et al. Earth and Planetary Science Letters (2000)

From Acton's paper that discusses the African Afar anomaly: "One lava flow has recorded both of the antipodal transitional components, with the two components residing in magnetic minerals with unblocking temperature above and below approx. 500C,... Hence the configuration of the geomagnetic field, appears to have jumped nearly from a north-hemisphere transitional state to a south-hemisphere one during this normal-to-reverse polarity transition." (i.e. This geomagnetic change in field direction occurred in the time a single lava flow took to cool. Say a few days.)

Heat Flux Problem.
The earth’s core is hot, but there is a problem generating a sharp temperature gradient to generate convection flow. The sun has a gradient of about 2,000,000 degrees Celsius from base of convection zone to photosphere 7000C. The earth has a gradient of roughly maximum 6000 Celsius. The geophysics thermal models required a high temperature layer which is generated as the liquid mantle crystallizes at the mantle core boundary. (Heat is generated by energy of crystallization.) The geomagnetic models do not work prior to when the earth’s core formed. (Without a core the earth’s centre is hot but the thermal gradient is 1/10 of current.) The earth’s core is a maximum of 1 billion years old, based on basic thermal dynamic calculations. (Too much heat generated core does not from, too little heat generated core will be too large. Lower limit for core formation is around 300 MM years.) It is known that the earth has had a geomagnetic field for at least 3.8 billion years.



I stated this somewhere else recently, but when paleomagnetic evidence is presented that indicates such a rapid field polarity switch (and in two seperate lava flow studies), clearly this contradicts our models of the capabilities of the present earth-core generated magnetic field system. Intuitively, one of the two must be incorrect, and theoretical models are usually many times more likely to be skewed than two sets of empirical, scientific data.

Presented in this recent paper are linkages between the location of our solar system relative to our galaxy's heavily-populated spiral arms and the relatively empty space bewteen branches -

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=A...c47f887cb6a8ee2

(note: if the above link doesn't load, it's because I'm currently at work, where I'm granted access to many science journal articles. This might affect the page's address, and make it unable to load from PCs not granted access... I'll check back up on it once I'm home.)

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
William Astley :

...The following is more information concerning unexplained geomagnetic field changes. (Comment: The cyclic geomagnetic field changes are hypothesized to drive the glacial/interglacial cycle. These series of comments provides the data of how the geomagnetic field has changed in the past and outlines fundamental problems with the standard core hypothesis, which shows the gap between observations and the limations of the geodynamic mechanism to generate the geomagnetic field changes observed. At the end of these series of comments, the solar cycle changes will be directly linked to the geomagnetic field changes.)

The following are two papers that discuss geomagnetic field changes that are roughly 300,000 times faster, than the fastest possible field change, if the geomagnetic field is created by self generation, in the earth’s core.

1) Core Can Not Generate Very Rapid Geomagnetic Field Changes
From the standpoint of how quickly and why the earth’s core would change so quickly it is currently believed that there are no physically possible mechanisms in the core that could create the geomagnetic field changes observed. The standard geodynamic core models show the geomagnetic reversals should take place over a couple of thousand years, not a few days.

Another hurdle for the core generating rapid field changes on the earth’s surface is: As the earth’s mantle is slightly conductive, very rapid magnetic field changes will generate a back EMF in earth’s mantle, which will create electric currents in the mantle. The mantle electric currents will oppose a rapid core generated magnetic field change. A magnetic field change of the rapidity and magnitude, described in the next two papers, therefore could not pass from the core to the earth’s surface.

2) Fundamental Problems with Core Model
There are a number of first order problems that geophysicists have found that question if the earth’s core is capable of generating the geomagnetic field. (See heat flux problem end of this comment.)

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v374/...s/374687a0.html

“New evidence for extraordinarily rapid change of the geomagnetic field during a reversal” R. S. Coe et al, Nature, April 2002

“Palaeomagnetic results from lava flows recording a geomagnetic polarity reversal at Steens Mountain, Oregon suggest the occurrence of brief episodes of astonishingly rapid field change of six degrees per day. The evidence is large, systematic variations in the direction of remanent magnetization as a function of the temperature of thermal demagnetization and of vertical position within a single flow, which are most simply explained by the hypothesis that the field was changing direction as the flow cooled.”


http://www.geo.edu.ro/~paleomag/PDF/00-180-225.pdf

“The tectonic and geomagnetic significance of paleomagnetic observations from volcanic rocks from central Afar, Africa” Gary D. Acton et al. Earth and Planetary Science Letters (2000)

From Acton's paper that discusses the African Afar anomaly: "One lava flow has recorded both of the antipodal transitional components, with the two components residing in magnetic minerals with unblocking temperature above and below approx. 500C,... Hence the configuration of the geomagnetic field, appears to have jumped nearly from a north-hemisphere transitional state to a south-hemisphere one during this normal-to-reverse polarity transition." (i.e. This geomagnetic change in field direction occurred in the time a single lava flow took to cool. Say a few days.)

Heat Flux Problem.
The earth’s core is hot, but there is a problem generating a sharp temperature gradient to generate convection flow. The sun has a gradient of about 2,000,000 degrees Celsius from base of convection zone to photosphere 7000C. The earth has a gradient of roughly maximum 6000 Celsius. The geophysics thermal models required a high temperature layer which is generated as the liquid mantle crystallizes at the mantle core boundary. (Heat is generated by energy of crystallization.) The geomagnetic models do not work prior to when the earth’s core formed. (Without a core the earth’s centre is hot but the thermal gradient is 1/10 of current.) The earth’s core is a maximum of 1 billion years old, based on basic thermal dynamic calculations. (Too much heat generated core does not from, too little heat generated core will be too large. Lower limit for core formation is around 300 MM years.) It is known that the earth has had a geomagnetic field for at least 3.8 billion years.



I stated this somewhere else recently, but when paleomagnetic evidence is presented that indicates such a rapid field polarity switch (and in two seperate lava flow studies), clearly this contradicts our models of the capabilities of the present earth-core generated magnetic field system. Intuitively, one of the two must be incorrect, and theoretical models are usually many times more likely to be skewed than two sets of empirical, scientific data.

Presented in this recent paper are linkages between the location of our solar system relative to our galaxy's heavily-populated spiral arms and the relatively empty space bewteen branches -

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=A...c47f887cb6a8ee2

(note: if the above link doesn't load, it's because I'm currently at work, where I'm granted access to many science journal articles. This might affect the page's address, and make it unable to load from PCs not granted access... I'll check back up on it once I'm home.)

sciencedirect.com report :

On mega-cycle periods external forcing seems to play a role in the appearance of superchrons of the geomagnetic field. When applying current spiral arm models superchrons developed during times when the solar system was located between spiral arms. This suggests that the galactic environment may force the geomagnetic field to switch from its reversing mode into superchron stages probably via modulations of the Sun. Interestingly, there is a link to the structuring of magnetic fields in our galaxy. While the galactic magnetic fields between spiral arms are homogenous, the passage of the solar system through turbulent magnetic fields along the spiral arms parallels high geomagnetic reversal rates.


Ohhhh, the interconnectivity of it all smile.gif


Lastly, here's a page describing a smattering of effects we could expect if our solar system were to pass through a dense cloud of interstellar matter -

http://www.americanscientist.org/template/...sionid=aaa5LVF0


By the way, this is kind of like a public journal for me, a learn-as-I-go type thing. Any contributions, opinions, or insights are of course welcome.
wingod
28th August 2007 - 07:28 PM
QUOTE (am_Unition+Aug 16 2007, 07:24 PM)
Concerning the new article about the earth's core composition and molecular structures -

http://www.physorg.com/news106488564.html


This is one of the most exciting articles that has been published recently, if only to me. The thread that drew me into this forum discussed related issues, mainly dealing with solar cycles and climatic correlations. Link -

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=15049&st=15


William Astley, a name I find on various physics forum sites and sometimes in online climate article comments, was the creater of the above thread. One entry in particular directly applies to this recently published study about our core models.




I stated this somewhere else recently, but when paleomagnetic evidence is presented that indicates such a rapid field polarity switch (and in two seperate lava flow studies), clearly this contradicts our models of the capabilities of the present earth-core generated magnetic field system. Intuitively, one of the two must be incorrect, and theoretical models are usually many times more likely to be skewed than two sets of empirical, scientific data.

Presented in this recent paper are linkages between the location of our solar system relative to our galaxy's heavily-populated spiral arms and the relatively empty space bewteen branches -

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=A...c47f887cb6a8ee2

(note: if the above link doesn't load, it's because I'm currently at work, where I'm granted access to many science journal articles. This might affect the page's address, and make it unable to load from PCs not granted access... I'll check back up on it once I'm home.)



Ohhhh, the interconnectivity of it all smile.gif


Lastly, here's a page describing a smattering of effects we could expect if our solar system were to pass through a dense cloud of interstellar matter -

http://www.americanscientist.org/template/...sionid=aaa5LVF0


By the way, this is kind of like a public journal for me, a learn-as-I-go type thing. Any contributions, opinions, or insights are of course welcome.

I have been asked to repost this response that I made in a climate related thread and here it is with a couple of additions:

I throw this out because it is something that I have been thinking about for a long time.

My degree is in engineering physics, which is a rare degree today with the bifurcation of the engineering art and science. So, I have a deep electrical engineering background along with my physics training. I worked for the Center for Space Plasma and Aeronomic Research (CSPAR) at the University of Alabama in Huntsville for several years and learned quite about about space weather.

So much for background.

I have often thought about the sun/earth connection as one that could be modeled as an electrical circuit. The sun is the power source and the Earth is an RLC (Resistance/Inductance/Capacitance) circuit. There is a lot of data that supports this type of model for the solar/terrestrial system and could provide an explanation for the terrestrial geomagnetic field.

In this EE type model the lithosphere is the resistor with the earth's core being the equivalent of an iron core inductor. The atmosphere is the dielectric of the capacitance circuit with the ionosphere and earth surface being the two plates of the capacitor.

With the discovery of "vertical" lightning in the early 1990's and also the data from the Gamma Ray Observatory BATSE low energy gamma experiment, it was discovered that electrical currents of fantastic size (hundreds of gigawatts to terawatts) of energy flows from the lower atmosphere to the ionosphere and back through thunderstorms.

Add to this the very recent discovery of a "resonance" by the ESA Ulysses spacecraft between the sun's helioseismological oscillations and the Earth, you have a framework that can be put together that goes like this.

The sun, being a source of unimagninable power induces currents in the solar magnetic field that couples to the terrestrial RLC circuit. Since the Earth's core is made from an alloy of nickel/iron this coupling of currents induces a "back EMF" in the core that is manifested as the geomagnetic field.

This should be testable as well. During very large solar flares and or shortly thereafter there should be some short term minor variations in the rotational velocity of the earth or earth's core relative to the surface. We already know that there are huge variations in the Earth's magnetic field. There have also been many reports over the years of large induced currents in the Earth's surface, especially in Canada, where the oldest crust is exposed, which has high concentrations of iron.

There is another phenomenon that is well known to electrical engineers that can have a bearing here. The concept is "magnetorestriction" and it is defined as the mechanical response in a metal to electric current. If I remember this right, when a pulse of electric current is imposed on a metal such as iron it "restricts" or shrinks (or grows it has been a while I forget which) and then when the current is removed it springs back to its original position. Interestingly enough Nickel has exactly the opposite response to current, it expands (or shrinks) and then when the current is removed the metal relaxes.

What this brings to mind is the composition of the Earth's core regions. Those of us who are active in asteroid research know that all metallic asteroids (m class) are composed of an allow of iron and nickel with minority contributions by cobalt and platinum group metals. If the Earth's core is actually made up of this alloy, which is 99.9999% certain, then when a "pulse" of energy is directed a the earth from the sun (or the periodic oscillations transferring energy as discovered by the Ulysses spacecraft), then we may be able to generate a new theory of how the Earth's core maintains its heat that does not strictly depend on radioactive decay, a theory that while the numbers work, has not been demonstrated by any of the m-class asteroid fragments that are of the same type of core material.

This is something that, again I have been thinking about for years and over time more and more data comes in that is consistent with this hypothesis and predictions can be made based upon the hypothesis that can be tested. In terms of the magnetorestriction generating the heat for the Earth's core, it should be possible to calculate the energy required as well as to place estimates on the alloy composition required to generate the heat of friction that would make this whole theory hang together (or die a rightful death). This is what is interesting, a framework can be generated and it is testable, both theoretically and by observation. There are even predictions that can be made for the core of Mercury, which is known to have a huge iron core and will be visited by the NASA Messenger spacecraft late this year and later in orbit around our closest neighbor to the sun.

Comments?
rethinker
16th October 2007 - 10:44 PM
am_Unition,wingod and all
Have you seen this yet?

Physicists Determine Source of 'Killer' Electrons in Earth's Radiation Belt

“These 'killer' electrons can harm astronauts and even passengers on regular airline flights that go through Earth's polar regions

Killer electrons
yor_on
16th October 2007 - 11:35 PM
Wingod :) You wrote " During very large solar flares and or shortly thereafter there should be some short term minor variations in the rotational velocity of the earth or earth's core relative to the surface. " What kind of tests were you thinking of?

And one more thing :)
Don't freak out now
Tesla
Sapo
16th October 2007 - 11:36 PM
am_Unition, fascinating post. I think I have my reading assignment for tonight. smile.gif
rethinker
17th October 2007 - 01:16 AM
QUOTE (yor_on+Oct 16 2007, 11:35 PM)
Wingod smile.gif You wrote " During very large solar flares and or shortly thereafter there should be some short term minor variations in the rotational velocity of the earth or earth's core relative to the surface. " What kind of tests were you thinking of?

And one more thing smile.gif
Don't freak out now
Tesla

That is some good post
Thanks for pointing to it.
I will go over it again.
I think you are correct that Tesla was indeed one of the best researchers.
am_Unition
17th October 2007 - 05:35 PM
QUOTE (rethinker+Oct 16 2007, 10:44 PM)
am_Unition,wingod and all
Have you seen this yet?

Physicists Determine Source of 'Killer' Electrons in Earth's Radiation Belt

Rethinker, you sent me an email on this back in July, from a different news source. The only thing different with this newest release was that they actually revealed in no uncertain terms what the mechanism actually was. Before, they only danced around it and bragged about the find without giving any details.

Guess you're just ahead of the game smile.gif
rethinker
18th October 2007 - 02:22 AM
Thanks I do remember sending it to you, but this paragraph seems to go along with my experiments.

QUOTE
Most of the electrons injected into the belt follow trajectories that are nearly parallel with the magnetic field lines, and they soon lose energy. But for electrons that were initially injected at angles more perpendicular to the field lines – those with larger “pitch angles” – gyro-resonance has the opposite effect: a serious energy boost.
am_Unition
18th October 2007 - 05:51 AM
That's definitely consistent with explaining how magnetic reconnection dumps such massive amounts of energy into the ionosphere/magnetosphere system. When the field lines become entangled and plasmic solar wind electrons and isotopes (mainly H+ and He++ protons) are injected into the magnetosphere, the VAST majority of them are traveling perpendicular to the magnetic field lines, i.e. directly towards earth.

During times when the Interplanetary Magnetic Field isn't oriented south and magnetic reconnection consequently cannot occur, the only way to inject particles into the magnetosphere is via solar radiation stripping ions and electrons off from the ionosphere. When this happens, the pitch angles are more random, with 1) much less ion/electron flux than solar wind injection from magnetic reconnection, and 2) very few particles having near-perpendicular pitch angles.

Here's a good graphic of the Van Allen Radiation Belts -

User posted image


Keep in mind this is a 2D view of a 3D object, as they both extend around the earth 360 degrees, giving it that "dough-nut" shape... two dough-nuts, actually. The outer radiation belt contains mostly electrons, while the inner belt contains mostly protons.

Eventually though, all those high energy particles from solar storms must spiral back down along magnetic field lines, and collide with the upper atmosphere, giving us the aurora borealis and australis.


This gives you an idea of how the ionosphere and magnetosphere interact with solar radiation and wind. Rethinker gave this one his two thumbs up -

http://hpb.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/LWS-geospace-IT.jpg

That picture is so marvelous that I simply cannot defile it with the 10x10 pixel size ( laugh.gif ) that physorg limits pictures inside of forums posts to.

The left side of the earth depicted is supposed to be directly facing the sun, whereas the right side is facing away. They wanted to make the sun more to scale and have a smaller file size, so they approximated its location. On a side note, notice the darker region towards the south in the magnetic flux tube... I've been wondering if white areas represent higher particle flux densities (in outer areas). Maybe the dark spot is a covert mention of the South Atlantic Anomaly?

Read about it! - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Atlantic_Anomaly
am_Unition
19th October 2007 - 10:43 AM
QUOTE (wingod+Aug 28 2007, 07:28 PM)
During very large solar flares and or shortly thereafter there should be some short term minor variations in the rotational velocity of the earth or earth's core relative to the surface.


Bingo, finally fished something out of the internet for you wingod and rethinker.


http://www.agu.org/meetings/sm07/sm07-sess.../sm07_G42A.html

QUOTE
from section entitled:

G42A - 06 INVITED

"Short-period Variations of the Earth Rotation Parameters Observed by Very Long Baseline Interferometry"

High-frequency polar motion and universal time variations are obtained from Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI). The goal is to detect short-period and episodic events with signatures below the 100 microarcseconds (7.5 microseconds) level. Ter-diurnal variations in the order of 40 microarcseconds in polar motion have been reported during the VLBI campaign CONT02, from October 16 to 31, 2002. But, no geophysical explanation with similar amplitudes was provided. To resolve this enigma, we re-processed the VLBI data obtained during the CONT96, CONT02, and CONT05 campaigns using identical an the most recent reduction models. Two independent software packages were used, OCCAM61E and CALC SOLVE, to assure robustness of the Earth rotation parameters (ERP) estimated with semi-hourly resolution over the fortnightly data sets. The long wavelength signal was removed by a smooth function from the final ERP. Jumps in the ERP values at session boundaries were identified. A heuristic and Fourier frequency analysis shows no significant ter-diurnal periods. In addition, this high-frequency analysis allows to detect incorrect daily ERP values in the International Earth Rotation and reference Systems (IERS) C04 series.



Now, a historical dive into the Planetary K-index to give us an idea of the geospace activity around mentioned October 16 - 31 period.

http://www.magnetsturm.de/archiv/

^^ you will have to thumb back to the year 2002 and look towards the early days of October. You will notice that there was a wealth of high activity for a length of approximately 10 days early in the month.

Forces exerted by solar storms could lag slightly in the time it takes for the effects on earth rotation to manifest, as it may affect the rotational velocity of specific Earth regions before making itself known to observers on the surface (thanks wingod for this suggestion smile.gif ). Also, remember that we are considering the motion of a nonrigid solid, with forces exerted from electric currents and charges pushing/pulling the most on other conductive and magnetized areas, such as the mantle and core deep beneath us and the atmosphere, ionosphere and magnetosphere above us. These above and below layers of the earth may have a delay before affecting our layer, and many other factors could be at play.


Here's a great read - Earth Rotation Variations

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
from section entitled:

G42A - 06 INVITED

"Short-period Variations of the Earth Rotation Parameters Observed by Very Long Baseline Interferometry"

High-frequency polar motion and universal time variations are obtained from Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI). The goal is to detect short-period and episodic events with signatures below the 100 microarcseconds (7.5 microseconds) level. Ter-diurnal variations in the order of 40 microarcseconds in polar motion have been reported during the VLBI campaign CONT02, from October 16 to 31, 2002. But, no geophysical explanation with similar amplitudes was provided. To resolve this enigma, we re-processed the VLBI data obtained during the CONT96, CONT02, and CONT05 campaigns using identical an the most recent reduction models. Two independent software packages were used, OCCAM61E and CALC SOLVE, to assure robustness of the Earth rotation parameters (ERP) estimated with semi-hourly resolution over the fortnightly data sets. The long wavelength signal was removed by a smooth function from the final ERP. Jumps in the ERP values at session boundaries were identified. A heuristic and Fourier frequency analysis shows no significant ter-diurnal periods. In addition, this high-frequency analysis allows to detect incorrect daily ERP values in the International Earth Rotation and reference Systems (IERS) C04 series.



Now, a historical dive into the Planetary K-index to give us an idea of the geospace activity around mentioned October 16 - 31 period.

http://www.magnetsturm.de/archiv/

^^ you will have to thumb back to the year 2002 and look towards the early days of October. You will notice that there was a wealth of high activity for a length of approximately 10 days early in the month.

Forces exerted by solar storms could lag slightly in the time it takes for the effects on earth rotation to manifest, as it may affect the rotational velocity of specific Earth regions before making itself known to observers on the surface (thanks wingod for this suggestion smile.gif ). Also, remember that we are considering the motion of a nonrigid solid, with forces exerted from electric currents and charges pushing/pulling the most on other conductive and magnetized areas, such as the mantle and core deep beneath us and the atmosphere, ionosphere and magnetosphere above us. These above and below layers of the earth may have a delay before affecting our layer, and many other factors could be at play.


Here's a great read - Earth Rotation Variations

from Short-period geomagnetic, atmospheric and Earth-rotation variations

It is well known that dramatically great changes of Ap [an index for the general amount of geomagnetic activity experienced over the globe] have been observed.  A sudden increment of Ap can be an order of magnitude larger than its mean annual value (Apm).  A high level of geomagnetic intensity is usually observed for several days.  Having in mind the duration and magnitude of these perturbations, we have supposed as possible the contribution of the irregular geomagnetic variations in d l.o.d.


The only issue is that this paper is dated at a little over 26 years old... Surely we've done more testing since then using satellite arrays and other new methods of measurement.

Soon I'll delve into the math for this smile.gif
rethinker
19th October 2007 - 11:57 AM
am_Unition
Just took a quick look at your post and links.
Man you seem to be working up a storm wink.gif

I have a feeling you may be about to push out a pattern that makes it all understandable, much less something more that that.

If you can get William Astley to take a look at your details, I think he will be able to see some patterns and give advice as he has done in the past.
Ill be back
am_Unition
22nd October 2007 - 04:26 AM
QUOTE

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_of_the_Earth#Core:

It is generally believed that convection in the outer core, combined with stirring caused by the Earth's rotation (see: Coriolis effect), gives rise to the Earth's magnetic field through a process described by the dynamo theory. The solid inner core is too hot to hold a permanent magnetic field (see Curie temperature) but probably acts to stabilize the magnetic field generated by the liquid outer core.

Recent evidence has suggested that the inner core of Earth may rotate slightly faster than the rest of the planet.[8] In August 2005 a team of geophysicists announced in the journal Science that, according to their estimates, Earth's inner core rotates approximately 0.3 to 0.5 degrees per year relative to the rotation of the surface.[9][10]

The current scientific explanation for the Earth's temperature gradient is a combination of the heat left over from the planet's initial formation, the decay of radioactive elements, and the freezing of the inner core. Other explanations include the georeactor hypothesis [a theory attributing the temperature gradient to nuclear fission, and generally less accepted].


I'd like to point out that the inner core rotation rate is observed as being faster than the rate on the surface of the earth. One third to half a degree per year is actually fairly substantial.

The data gathered over the past 20 years through VLBI (Very Long Baseline Interferometry) has shown an overall decreasing trend in the length of [a] day resulting from tidal friction induced by the moon and sun. I found a perfect (and free) .pdf file from the American Geophysical Union detailing this trend, along with sub-seasonal, seasonal, annual, and long-term variations. Tragically, my browser crashed while I was away, and I lost the link :( . I'll be digging for it in the days to come.


Here are some fascinating links detailing a correlation between length of day fluctuations, the geomagnetic field (specifically changing declination at observation point), and the fluid mechanics of the earth's core in a 60 year period -

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004AGUFMGP11D0851Y
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~c...ll~jumptype=rss


Also mentioned in the above wikipedia article is the explanation for the temperature gradient in the earth's core. Wingod's idea of magnetorestriction generating some of this heat is something I'm still looking into, and material on it is very scarce. Combining this with the fact that a) the different compositions, molecular structures, conductivities, and dynamics of the core and mantle are not yet nailed down and b) analyzing the net effects will force me to dive into chemistry, means that I have a rather long to-do list.



I'll be back after much thought.
am_Unition
27th October 2007 - 11:30 AM
Revisiting the possibility of solar storms influencing subseasonal variations in length of day...

During solar storms, plasma from coronal wind, flares, or mass ejections is injected into our magnetosphere as a result of magnetic reconnection, at an initial velocity perpendicular to the Earth's B-field lines. This creates the "gyro-resonant wave acceleration" talked about in the recent press release rethinker posted. The Van Allen radiation belts are created in this manner, with protons dominating the inner belt, electrons dominating the outer.

Logically, the behavior of this "precipitating plasma" can be explained by the observations: 1) the electron and proton have (approximately) the same charge, one of course being the negative of the other 2) the electron's mass is slightly less than 1/8000th of the proton mass. As a result, electrons can be accelerated up to speeds near that of light by gyro-resonance.

F = qv x B
With the high densities of electrons present during and after geomagnetic storms traveling at such high velocities, surely a considerable amount of force must be exerted on the core/mantle system. Protons comprising the inner belt of course contribute, but the electrons reach the highest energies. It's crucial to remember that we're dealing with the right hand rule as well, which means that without organized movements of charged particles, no organized force is likely to occur. As the Van Allen belts can be compared to large-scale atomic electron clouds, the motion of both is assuredly chaotic.

However, with randomly-variant forces exerted on them, the highly-conductive mantle, core, and ionosphere (or respective regions thereof) are likely to feel some kind of net energy gain, transferred from the highly energetic particles. This could be in the form of gained angular momentum, heat, an atmospheric electric process, auroras, etc. These all may superimpose on each other to create the net affect - notable variations in the length of day on a subseasonal timeframe.

Then again, there's always the possibility of completely chaotic behavior, with no linkable mechanism wink.gif



Diverging a bit, here's an article about a 5.8 year period of variance seen in the length of day (3 whole milliseconds!) -
http://www.springerlink.com/content/uj9x5xtaa8xlkwtt/

And an update -
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=A...2ffe64ce2cef1a6

So if on the long scale, we approximate earth's angular momentum to be constant, and we know that it is equal to the moment of inertia * angular velocity, a periodically changing velocity must be compensated for with a changing moment of inertia. The earth must actually deform, becoming roughly elongated in one dimension with a slight radial decrease in the other two orthagonal dimensions. Imagine a ball hitting a wall with high velocity and elasticity; any given dimension of the ball compresses, decompresses, compresses, decompresses etc., and without the influence of gravity is allowed to continue this oscillation of its mass in a manner much like that of a damped spring.

If we know the earth has existed much like it is currently for a substantial amount of time, these periodic oscillations are likely to be a damped result of the collision that created the moon smile.gif

Additionally, these oscillations could naturally synchronize themselves with times of high solar activity, roughly a 10.8 year cycle. If only we had a few millions of years worth of data to give us an accurate idea of long term trends.

Ultimately a 5.4 year cycle of length of day periodicity would be the closest to the current period and most sustainable by solar activity, like harmonic over/undertones. The period of variance would have to be much shorter after the moon was initially knocked off the earth, with a higher initial amplitude of oscillation that's been damped ever since. As a necessary requirement for an amplitude-dependent period that changes with time (around 4.5 billion years of time), the restoring force would have to be nonlinear. For period to decrease with amplitude would require some restoring force with x of the negative nth order. This is indeed the case, as gravity is the restoring force for each infinitesimal piece of the earth; F = G*(m1)*(m2)/(x^2); with x of the negative 2nd order.

The energy lost via damping would most likely be in the form of additional heat, although now would surely be undetectable from all the heat generated in the core and mantle anyways.

Fun stuff!
am_Unition
27th October 2007 - 07:17 PM
QUOTE (am_Unition+Oct 27 2007, 11:30 AM)
The period of variance would have to be much shorter after the moon was initially knocked off the earth, with a higher initial amplitude of oscillation that's been damped ever since.

My apologies, the period would initially be longer, and decay with the amplitude over time.

If the length of day period is influenced by solar activity and had an initial value greater than 10.8 years, it may have already "resonated" with solar cycles once. This of course is provided our sun has exhibited the cycles observed presently for the past few billion years (a big "if"). The rate of change for the period and amplitude of oscillation might approach zero for a while around a 10.8 year period, with the Earth eventually losing energy from friction caused by elastic deformation, and slowly falling out of phase with the solar cycle. The rate of change would gradually increase again as the period fell below 10.8 years.
paul h
27th October 2007 - 10:54 PM
QUOTE (am_Unition+Oct 27 2007, 03:17 PM)
My apologies, the period would initially be longer, and decay with the amplitude over time.

If the length of day period is influenced by solar activity and had an initial value greater than 10.8 years, it may have already "resonated" with solar cycles once.  This of course is provided our sun has exhibited the cycles observed presently for the past few billion years (a big "if").  The rate of change for the period and amplitude of oscillation might approach zero for a while around a 10.8 year period, with the Earth eventually losing energy from friction caused by elastic deformation, and slowly falling out of phase with the solar cycle.  The rate of change would gradually increase again as the period fell below 10.8 years.

This thread is way over my head, but a good read . If you don't mind a stupid question from the peanut gallery.

>and slowly falling out of phase with the solar cycle. The rate of change would gradually increase again...


As these cycles come in and out of phase, would this be detectable as low frequency high amplitude spikes when they are in phase, and high frequency low amplitude "ripples" when they are out. If so, would these extremes be predictable at a rate of 2 x the solar cycle rate?

If this questian is really dumb,,, sad.gif

just say " get out " and I'll sit down and shut up. wink.gif
am_Unition
28th October 2007 - 03:08 AM
QUOTE (paul h+Oct 27 2007, 10:54 PM)
As these cycles come in and out of phase, would this be detectable as low frequency high amplitude spikes when they are in phase, and high frequency low amplitude "ripples" when they are out. If so, would these extremes be predictable at a rate of 2 x the solar cycle rate?

Firstly, there are no such things as "stupid questions". The pursuit of knowledge is in fact quite unstupid wink.gif

That's a great question though, I just about pulled a muscle trying to run a 3D simulation of your scenario inside my head. It is very likely that the deformation experienced by the Earth is nowhere near as simplistic as I proposed, and is much more like the system you just detailed.

Earth has a variable density that is not explicitly defined by distance from the center alone. Variations in crust thickness, lithosphere depth, the oceans, etc. are obvious examples, although any density anomalies closer to the core would have a greater effect on the path of waves traveling through the earth. Seismology is a very intriguing field of study.

As you mentioned, the case may be that over large amounts of time, the total amount of the energy propagating through the earth remains roughly the same (although logically would be confined by some slow exponential decay function, such as e^-bt, with b as an extremely small number). Any initially organized wave becomes broken up and scattered from diffraction, diffusion, rarefaction, compression, and reflection as a result of this non-uniform Earth density and boundary conditions. However, some means may exist that organizes these waves again periodically, whether as a result of internal Earth properties/processes or external forcing from the sun and planets, creating the elastic deformation necessary to achieve a 3 millisecond change in the length of day.

The "low frequency, high amplitude spikes" and "high frequency, low amplitude ripples" may very likely exist, possibly even on multiple time-frames. The rate of l.o.d. variance (~5.8 yrs) is slightly longer than half a solar cycle (~5.4 yrs). It's anyone's guess exactly how (or if) the two are related, as we have virtually no long-term data on l.o.d. periods. Note also that the 5.8 yr. l.o.d. cycle has a rather high uncertainty of ±0.8, as reported from the abstract at sciencedirect.com.

It's always fun to theorize though biggrin.gif

So paul, do you think we're more in or out of phase right now? If we stay alive an entire millennium or so, we just may find out...
paul h
28th October 2007 - 12:15 PM
>So Paul, do you think we're more in or out of phase right now?

It would be allot easier to find out if the entire core was made of jello.

>rate of l.o.d. variance (~5.8 yrs) is slightly longer than half a solar cycle (~5.4 yrs).

Lag time? reverse frame dragging??

I had thought you were thinking more about the molten core more so than the entire inside of the planet.
As you said the changing densities are one thing that can alter the waves from reaching the core but, now add to this, spin and shock waves from volcanoes, earthquakes, oh yea bombs and then consider the (as the thread title suggests) the global electric grid that always returns to ground, concentrated in certain places and not so much in others. all of this adding it's own waves to the solar waves,,,, The mental pic that I had of all of this was a bit like the mental image I get when thinking about light waves ricocheting all around us until I started reading this thread then I could almost see the jello effect (with a scoop of Tesla on the side) If the molten core comes in phase and the waves align into "low frequency, high amplitude waves" then I can see not only a change to the spin rate ( + or -) but also a bit of Tesla's earthquake machine as well. wacko.gif
am_Unition
29th October 2007 - 05:55 AM
Well, the core does have the lowest viscosity and highest density, so the most influential movement should logically originate from deep inside earth. The other regions no doubt have an influence, but it just seems like all roads point to a chaotic system that is extremely sensitive to the slightest perturbations and should evolve into chaos within such a long time frame.

Obviously though, this is not the case. Thus, the mystery needs to be solved.


I've been so hasty that I completely forgot an incredibly obvious factor - the moon. The moon is already known to exert a linear drag on the earth's length of day via ocean and atmospheric tides, but that alone cannot explain a sinusoidal variation in the l.o.d.

As you probably know, when a body of smaller mass orbits a larger mass body, the larger body does not simply remain stationary; the two share a common center of mass that each revolves around. Such is the case with the Earth/moon system.

I'll be thinking about this in the days to come, but I have a wave equations test on tuesday. And yes, I'll get back to the global electric circuit soon smile.gif
paul h
29th October 2007 - 11:22 AM
> I'll get back to the global electric circuit soon

Yes, keep us posted smile.gif
rethinker
1st November 2007 - 01:50 AM
Just a quick note on how some data is being annualized from the Genesis Mission which crashed into Utah mud in 2004.

scientists analyze solar wind samples from Genesis Mission

10,000 pieces of Genesis found in Utah Mud
paul h
1st November 2007 - 09:32 PM
am_Unition,

See what you can make of this sites' lunar cycles, compared to your thoughts of a lunar effect on core oscillation. (it may be junk, but his 17 yerm cycles may align with your's)

http://www.hermetic.ch/cal_stud/palmen/yerm1.htm
am_Unition
2nd November 2007 - 07:18 PM
Thanks for the links guys. Still digesting/thinking on both. Been really busy this week, but I'll be back this weekend more smile.gif

Found a good blurb from solar scientist Leif Svalgaard in the solarcycle24.com guestbook... it's got some really good findings, I just had to post it for future references.

Definitely check out his site @ www.leif.org/research - and I recommend keeping wikipedia open in a different internet browser tab for word/acronym consultation.

QUOTE
from Leif Svalgaard, post #466 @ http://www.a-free-guestbook.com/guestbook....me=solarcycle24

There are five lines of evidence forming the argument that the sun has not been any dimmer in the past. And by ’past’ I mean ’recent past’ [thousands, not billions of years - when the Earth was formed, the sun was 25% dimmer; it has slowly increased in brightness and will continue to do so over billions of years].

Line 1;
The Total solar Irradiance (TSI) does have several sources. The first and most important is simply the temperature in the photosphere. The hotter the sun, the higher the TSI. Some spectral lines are VERY sensitive to even minute changes in temperature. Livingston et al. has very carefully measured the line depth of such temperature-sensitive lines over more than 30 years spanning three solar cycles [Sun-as-a-Star Spectrum Variations 1974-2006, W. Livingston, L. Wallace, O. R. White, M. S. Giampapa, The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 657, Issue 2, pp. 1137-1149, 2007, DOI; 10.1086/511127]. They report [and I apologize for the somewhat technical turn my argument is taking, but if you really want to know, there is no avoiding this], "that both Ca II K and C I 5380A intensities are constant, indicating that the basal quiet atmosphere is unaffected by cycle magnetism within our observational error. A lower limit to the Ca II K central intensity atmosphere is 0.040. This possibly represents conditions as they were during the Maunder Minimum [their words, remember]. Within our capability to measure it using the C I 5380A line the global (Full Disk) and basal (Center Disk) photospheric temperature is constant over the activity cycles 21, 22, and 23". I have known Bill Livingston [and White] for over 35 years and he is a very careful and competent observer, so I trust his result fully.

Line 2;
Since the 1960 we have known that the sun’s surface oscillates up and down [with typical periods of ~5 minutes]. These oscillations are waves very much like seismic waves in the Earth [caused by earthquakes] and can just as earthquakes seismic waves can be used to probe the interior of the Earth, be used to probe the solar interior. There are millions of such solar waves at any given time and there are different kinds (called ’modes’) of waves. The solar p-modes are acoustic [sound waves] normal modes. You one can imagine a frequency increase with an increasing magnetic field, due to the increase in magnetic pressure raising the local speed of sound near the surface where it is cooler and where the p-modes spend most of their time. Of course one can also imagine higher frequencies may result from an induced shrinking of the sound cavity and/or an isobaric warming of the cavity. Another kind is the solar f-modes that are the eigenmodes of the sun having no radial null points [i.e. asymptotically surface waves; again I apologize for the technical mumbo-jumbo]. From the solar cycle variations of p- and f-modes [and we have now enough data from the SOHO spacecraft to make such a study] we now have an internally consistent picture of the origin of these frequency
changes that implies a sun that is coolest at activity maximum when it is most irradiant. Now, how can that be? How can a cooler [overall, including the cooler sunspots, for instance, as the temperature of the non-magnetic areas of the sun didn’t change {see line 1 above}] sun radiate more? It can do that, if it is bigger! The change in the radius of the Sun from minimum to maximum is about 1 km. Goode and Dziembowski (Sunshine, Earthshine and Climate Change I. Origin of, and Limits on Solar Variability, by Goode, Philip R. & Dziembowski, W. A., Journal of the Korean Astronomical Society, vol. 36, S1, pp. S75-S81, 2003) used the helioseismic data to determine the shape changes in the Sun with rising activity. They calculated the so-called shape asymmetries from the seismic data and found each coefficient was essentially zero at activity minimum and rose in precise spatial correlation with rising surface activity, as measured using Ca II K data from Big Bear Solar Observatory. From this one can conclude that there is a rising corrugation of the solar surface due to rising activity, implying a cooler and smaller active sun, whose increased irradiance is totally due to activity induced corrugation, that makes the sun a better radiator [that is why radiators have ribs]. This interpretation has been recently observationally verified by Berger et al. (Berger, T.E., van der Voort, L., Rouppe, Loefdahl, M., Contrast analysis of Solar faculae and magnetic bright points. Astrophysical Journal, vol. 661, p.1272, 2007) using the new Swedish Solar Telescope. They have directly observed these corrugations. Goode & Dziembowski conclude that the Sun cannot have been any dimmer, on the time steps of solar evolution, than it is now at activity minimum.

Line 3;
Foukal et al. (Foukal, P., North, G., Wigley, T., A stellar view on solar variations and climate. Science, vol. 306, p. 68, 2004) point out the Sun’s web-like chromospheric magnetic network (an easily visible solar structure seen through a Ca II K filter) would have looked very different a century ago, if there had been a significant change in the magnetic field of the sun supposedly increasing TSI. However, there is a century of Mt. Wilson Solar Observatory Ca II K data which reveal that the early 20th century network is indistinguishable from that of today.

Line 4;
Svalgaard & Cliver have recently (A Floor in the Solar Wind Magnetic Field, by L. Svalgaard and E. W. Cliver, The Astrophysical Journal, vol. 661, L203–L206, 2007 June 1, 2007)
shown that long-term (∼130 years) reconstruction of the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) based on geomagnetic indices indicates that the solar wind magnetic field strength [and thus that of the sun itself, from which the IMF originates] has a “floor,” a baseline value in annual averages that it approaches at each 11 yr solar minimum. In the ecliptic plane at 1 AU [at the Earth], the IMF floor is ∼4.6 nT, a value substantiated by direct solar wind measurements and cosmogenic nuclei data. We identify the floor with a constant (over centuries) baseline open magnetic flux at 1 AU of ~4x10^14 Weber, corresponding to a constant strength (∼10^11 Ampere) of the heliospheric current. Solar cycle variations of the IMF strength ride on top of the floor. They point out that such a floor has implications for (1) the solar wind during grand minima — we are given a glimpse of Maunder minimum conditions at every 11 yr minimum; (2) current models of the solar wind — both source surface and MHD models are based on the assumption, invalidated by Ulysses, that the largest scale fields determine the magnitude of the IMF; consequently, these models are unable to reproduce the high-latitude observations; and (3) the use of geomagnetic input data for precursor-type predictions of the coming sunspot maximum — this common practice is rendered doubtful by the observed disconnect between solar polar field strength and heliospheric field strength [the wrong prediction by the NASA panel for cycle 23 was based on this, and the prediction {of a high cycle} by one half of panel for cycle 24 is also partly based on this]. The constancy of the IMF also has implications for the interpretation of the Galactic cosmic ray flux.

Line 5;
But maybe it is the Ultraviolet flux that varies and affects the stratospheric ozone concentration and thereby influences the climate. I have earlier in (Calibrating the Sunspot Number using the “Magnetic Needle”, L. Svalgaard; CAWSES News, 4(1), 6.5, 2007] pointed out that the amplitude of the diurnal variation of the geomagnetic Y-component is an excellent
proxy for the F10.7 radio flux and thus also for the EUV flux (more precisely, the FUV, as the Sq current flows in the E layer). There is a weak trend in the amplitude of 10% since the 1840s that can be understood as being due to an increase of ionospheric conductance resulting from the 10% decrease of the Earth’s main field. Correcting for and removing this trend then leads to the conclusion that (as for the IMF) there seems to be a “’floor’” in rY and hence in F10.7 and hence in the FUV flux, thus the geomagnetic evidence is that there has been no secular change in the background solar minimum EUV (FUV) flux in the past 165 years.


Direct measurements (although beset by calibration problems) of the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) from satellites have only been available for 30 years and indicate that solar irradiance increases with solar activity. Correlating mean annual TSI and sunspot numbers allows one to estimate the part of TSI that varies with the sunspot number. If TSI only depends linearly on the sunspot number then irradiance levels during the Maunder Minimum would be similar to the levels of current solar minima. But TSI is a delicate balance between sunspot darkening and facular brightening, and although both of these increase (in opposite directions) with increasing solar activity, it is not a given that there could not be secular variations in the relative importance of these competing effects. Several earlier reconstructions of TSI, reviewed in Fröhlich, C. & J. Lean (Solar Radiative Output and its Variability; Evidence and Mechanisms, Astron..& Astrophys. Rev., 12(4), 273, 2004, Doi;10.1007/s00159-004-0024-1.[6] all postulate a source of long-term irradiance variability on centennial time scales. Each group of researchers have their own preferred
additional source of changes of the “background” TSI, such as evidence from geomagnetic activity, open magnetic flux, ephemeral region occurrence, umbral/penumbral ratios, and the like. The existence of “floors” in IMF and FUV over ~1.6 centuries argues for a lack of secular variations of these parameters on that time scale. The five lines of evidence discussed above suggest that the lack of such secular variation undermines the circumstantial evidence for a “hidden” source of irradiance variability and that there therefore also might be a floor in TSI, such that TSI during Grand Minima would simply be that observed at current solar minima. This obviously has implications for solar forcing of terrestrial climate.
Zarkov
23rd November 2007 - 06:21 AM
QUOTE
The sun is the power source and the Earth is an RLC (Resistance/Inductance/Capacitance) circuit. There is a lot of data that supports this type of model for the solar/terrestrial system and could provide an explanation for the terrestrial geomagnetic field.

In this EE type model the lithosphere is the resistor with the earth's core being the equivalent of an iron core inductor. The atmosphere is the dielectric of the capacitance circuit with the ionosphere and earth surface being the two plates of the capacitor.


Nice understanding Wingod smile.gif

so true, the Sun drives the Earth, and it is responsible for our gravity... it is all electrodynamic. The Global Electric Field (clear weather field) is the key to most of the tectonic activity on Earth (or any other solar system body) and also the electrical equilisation between the ground and the ionosphere.

To your above model add clouds...... as oil drops, LOL.
wingod
23rd November 2007 - 07:13 AM
QUOTE (Zarkov+Nov 23 2007, 06:21 AM)

Nice understanding Wingod smile.gif

so true, the Sun drives the Earth, and it is responsible for our gravity... it is all electrodynamic. The Global Electric Field (clear weather field) is the key to most of the tectonic activity on Earth (or any other solar system body) and also the electrical equilisation between the ground and the ionosphere.

To your above model add clouds...... as oil drops, LOL.

I don't know about the gravity part but the electric circuit is very interesting. I was recently at NASA Ames and ran upon a scientist that postulated that earthquakes happen more frequently in the morning due to the transition in the ionosphere between the night time and day time state of the exosphere. A software engineer at Ames ran the last 100 years of earthquake data through a correlation program and did find a positive correlation between the time of day and Earthquakes for certain faults.

I hope to see this published sometime in the near future after it is fully vetted.


wingod
23rd November 2007 - 07:23 AM
QUOTE (yor_on+Oct 16 2007, 11:35 PM)
Wingod smile.gif You wrote " During very large solar flares and or shortly thereafter there should be some short term minor variations in the rotational velocity of the earth or earth's core relative to the surface. " What kind of tests were you thinking of?

And one more thing smile.gif
Don't freak out now
Tesla

As for a test, this is fairly easy these days. There is a network of sensors that NASA GSFC maintains that uses distant Quasars as reference points for an incredibly accurate measuring system. This measuring system has already been used to determine minor variations in the rotational velocity of the planet based upon the movements of large air masses in the atmosphere. There are other components to this that have not been definitively identified as of yet. Therefore as the next solar cycle increases in activity or when large coronal mass ejections are headed toward the earth, these should (or to qualify, could) induce currents of sufficient strength to "modulate" the rotational velocity of the earth, or the core relative to the surface, as was measured a few years ago.

I like testable theories.


Zarkov
24th November 2007 - 12:24 AM
Thanks wingod

I know about the gravity bit!

It is the resultant of sun-driven electric/magnetic field spin
ie... the electric vector orthogonal magnetic vector orthogonal gravity resultant all in a Poincaré 3 space sphere that surrounds each planet
am_Unition
24th November 2007 - 04:50 AM
Wingod, see my October 19th post, tell me what you think
wingod
24th November 2007 - 05:13 AM
QUOTE (am_Unition+Nov 24 2007, 04:50 AM)
Wingod, see my October 19th post, tell me what you think

Way cool. I have a friend who can take large datasets and look for these types of correlations. I wish I had more time to do it right now!

Thanks for the link. Will cite you at the nobel awards.

smile.gif


wingod
26th November 2007 - 02:42 AM
QUOTE (am_Unition+Oct 22 2007, 04:26 AM)

I'd like to point out that the inner core rotation rate is observed as being faster than the rate on the surface of the earth. One third to half a degree per year is actually fairly substantial.

The data gathered over the past 20 years through VLBI (Very Long Baseline Interferometry) has shown an overall decreasing trend in the length of [a] day resulting from tidal friction induced by the moon and sun. I found a perfect (and free) .pdf file from the American Geophysical Union detailing this trend, along with sub-seasonal, seasonal, annual, and long-term variations. Tragically, my browser crashed while I was away, and I lost the link sad.gif . I'll be digging for it in the days to come.


Here are some fascinating links detailing a correlation between length of day fluctuations, the geomagnetic field (specifically changing declination at observation point), and the fluid mechanics of the earth's core in a 60 year period -

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004AGUFMGP11D0851Y
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~c...ll~jumptype=rss


Also mentioned in the above wikipedia article is the explanation for the temperature gradient in the earth's core. Wingod's idea of magnetorestriction generating some of this heat is something I'm still looking into, and material on it is very scarce. Combining this with the fact that a) the different compositions, molecular structures, conductivities, and dynamics of the core and mantle are not yet nailed down and cool.gif analyzing the net effects will force me to dive into chemistry, means that I have a rather long to-do list.



I'll be back after much thought.

am

The information on magnetorestriction is found in the literature regarding the design of mechanical relays.

That is where I first became interested in the subject.


am_Unition
27th November 2007 - 03:11 AM
QUOTE (wingod+Nov 26 2007, 02:42 AM)
am

The information on magnetorestriction is found in the literature regarding the design of mechanical relays.

That is where I first became interested in the subject.

Ahhh, thank you goodsir.

Looking forward to hearing my physorg.com name dropped at the Nobel Awards smile.gif hahah


I need to head to the computer lab on my university campus (free scientific paper access!!) and read the full .pdf's on some papers I've linked to on this thread, and other links I've saved on the topic.

I'll be back biggrin.gif
rethinker
2nd December 2007 - 08:53 AM
am_Unition and all

adoucette has just posted a very interesting link to a study of the effects of solar/industry/manmade and natural surface change.
The paper called (New study on the effect of Solar Variability on Climate change) is current study of solar temperatures from 1000 to 2000.
It under this topic
Manmade Global Warming is a con game

Here is the link and study
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=287576Solar Climate change
paul h
2nd December 2007 - 05:33 PM
Back from the peanut gallery,
What (if any) effect does polarity reversal have on all of this?
am_Unition
8th December 2007 - 02:02 AM
Copy of my post from the "Manmade Global Warming is a con game" thread:

QUOTE

Seeing as how I'm obsessed with the sun and solar/terrestrial interaction, I've dug through quite a few articles on the subject. Unfortunately, I've found that material from credible sources often conflict with each other.

A prime example is your bolded statement in the previous post, claiming that the coronal magnetic field has doubled within the last century. A link to the paper claiming this can be found here.. This was also found to be true 5 years later by other scientists from the UK Solar Systems Data Center here.

This has been later rebuked by Solar Scientist Leif Svalgaard, who I have had the pleasure of conversing with on the message board of solarcycle24.com. A link to his abstract can be found here, and a link to his personal research page, full of all kinds of solar data, can be found here. Additionally supporting Leif is a paper published in 2000 from Russian research groups, the abstract is here.

The observations supporting the coronal doubling are strongly based upon the geomagnetic AA indices over the last 140 years. The AA index is defined as the perturbation of the Earth's magnetic field over 3 hour periods, as measured by two stations on opposite sides of the Earth, one in England and one in Australia. A better definition of geomagnetic indices is given by NOAA, with a link to the AA index near the bottom.

Much of these observations are dependent on the magnetic moment (strength of the source field) of the Earth, and in M. Lockwood's paper, this is of course considered in the equations he uses to derive the strength of the coronal B-field based upon Earth observations. He cites (#20) and uses the International Geomagnetic Reference Field model for obtaining the magnetic moment values for previous years.

This is all lovely, but one question I have remains unanswered - how does the total amount of solar energy (particulate and radiative) vary with relation to Earth's currently decaying magnetic field? The answer in the case of radiation may be more simple, as the Earth can be approximated as a cross sectional area, and the amount of solar radiation penetrating the magnetosphere may vary linearly with relation to B-field strength of the receiving body, or by some other known factor that is easily derived experimentally.

However, the more significant solar wind (particulate) influence, governed by magnetic reconnection, may be more complex. This, ultimately, is what affects all of our geophysical indices the most. After spending hours on google, I am still unable to find how a varying magnetic field for the receiving end (in our case, the Earth) of a plasmic energy transfer affects the total energy flux. I'm sure some laboratory experimental results are out there, but I haven't found them yet.

This total energy flux of course has climate forcing consequences.

---

The real question is... was the decaying geomagnetic field correctly taken into account by Lockwood et al. in his analysis? What about the effects of polar drift and the Chandler Wobble, along with accompanying ocean and atmosphere oscillations?

The only way to get to the bottom of this is to observe long term measurements of coronal field strength and total solar irradiance by satellites that orbit outside of the magnetopause during times of the very lowest solar activity, and satellites like SOHO. Unfortunately, long-term data that isn't subject to Earth influence only goes back about 12 years.

---

The new study linked to from the Duke website was very interesting, and is much like a meta-analysis. But again, the exact figures of solar influence are highly subject to which data the analysis chooses to use. I fairly much agree with the overall conclusion though.




Thanks for the heads up rethinker... I've been on holiday from physorg, which actually needs to never happen again. Been really busy studying for finals.. dry.gif

Paul... for the last time, you aren't a peanut gallery! laugh.gif That's a good question, and it ties in directly to my quoted post above.

In the times leading up to and after a pole reversal, the geomagnetic field strength of the earth is lower than it normally is. It decays as it approaches a reversal (as is the case currently) and similarly increases after the pole reversal. During the peak of the reversal, the magnetic field will drop to zero, if only as a global average. There will of course be small, localized anomalies, but they won't be near as strong as a healthy magnetic field.

As for any small affects on Earth's rotational velocity or mass oscillations from the sun (if these occurs, by no means proven yet), there definitely wouldn't be any influence during times of such a weak magnetic field.

Another consequence we would be direct exposure to solar and cosmic radiation, causing massive extinctions and genetic mutations. Humans are in no way excluded from this.

The most important factor is of course the time it takes for a reversal to manifest, and in my second post of this thread I talked about it a little bit.

With even more material appearing recently in the news about our changing concepts of conditions in the core and mantle and how the two interact, I become increasingly skeptical of our current models of a polar reversal, which suggest a reversal would take tens of thousands of years to complete. It would be bad news to discover some kind of "tipping point" that caused a reversal to take place over the course of a relatively small amount of time, but as of now, this seems pretty unlikely.

Again, in that second post, there is a link to a paper that finds a correlation between frequent polar reversals and times that the sun passes through dense clouds of interstellar hydrogen. I'm looking forward to when Voyager 1 breaks through the heliopause and we have our first direct observations of interstellar hydrogen density and velocity relative to the solar system.

IBEX (Interstellar Boundary Explorer) is set to launch in 2008 and analyze the heliopause from the inside.
yor_on
8th December 2007 - 02:24 AM
It's interesting reading AM Hope your finals turn out well:)
Thanks for the explanation Wingod. It sounded like a difficult task..
And still does:) But we sure move forward in this generation::))
Zarkov
9th December 2007 - 09:24 AM
QUOTE
another consequence we would be direct exposure to solar and cosmic radiation, causing massive extinctions and genetic mutations. Humans are in no way excluded from this.


ill conceived
Venus has a negligible magnetic field and still it has a healthy magnetopause.
paul h
9th December 2007 - 11:27 PM
am_Unition

>During the peak of the reversal, the magnetic field will drop to zero, if only as a global average. There will of course be small localized anomalies,

>Another consequence we would be direct exposure to solar and cosmic radiation, causing massive extinctions and genetic mutations. Humans are in no way excluded from this.


I didn't think that there would ever be a zero field. I thought very chaotic as shown here. But still protecting us.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/29...gneticfield.htm

quote from this site
Reversals take a few thousand years to complete, and during that time--contrary to popular belief--the magnetic field does not vanish. "It just gets more complicated," says Glatzmaier. Magnetic lines of force near Earth's surface become twisted and tangled, and magnetic poles pop up in unaccustomed places. A south magnetic pole might emerge over Africa, for instance, or a north pole over Tahiti. Weird. But it's still a planetary magnetic field, and it still protects us from space radiation and solar storms.

there is a photo on this page just below this quote (sorry I can't figure out how to paste it here) that show how chaotic the poles are while flipping.
am_Unition
12th December 2007 - 06:02 PM
QUOTE (Zarkov+Dec 9 2007, 09:24 AM)
ill conceived
Venus has a negligible magnetic field and still it has a healthy magnetopause.

I don't think that's entirely true.

Venus has an induced magnetopause, resulting from the interaction of the solar wind plasma with the ionosphere. Some of the solar wind is captured and contributes huge amounts of energy into the evolution of the atmosphere, and we all know how that turned out.


Paul, I've seen that animation before, with the red and blue fluids representing the two polarities, I know exactly what you're talking about. "Direct exposure" to radiation was definitely a bit of an overstatement, but I guarantee you that there would be some consequences. With the field lines tangled up, the radiation belts would either cease to exist or become very oddly shaped. The IMF field wouldn't necessarily need to be oriented to south to create magnetic reconnection, as the day side may reconnect while the night side would not if exposed to the same IMF orientation. Also, if particles were accelerated to high energies (don't know if the current mechanism would still hold up in the case of a chaotic B-field), the polar regions crop up who knows where. As the article says, that could pose a problem for air travelers.

Like you said, it would all take thousands of years, at least according to our current models. There's still paleomagnetic evidence that is unaccounted for by the "thousands of years" magnetic flip model, but it could just be that the field happened was traversing very quickly at the location of that lava flow.

I'm still fairly sure the geodynamo theory is incomplete, as Mercury's liquid core remains a myster. The hypothesis thrown around in this thread that the sun may contribute rotational and/or thermal energy to planetary systems is consistent with this, and mercury is closer to the sun, receiving a larger amount of flux... but why such a weak B-field?

Hmmmm...

Here's that sweet lookin' pic of mid-reversal B-lines:

User posted image
paul h
12th December 2007 - 09:10 PM
am_Unition,

>The hypothesis thrown around in this thread that the sun may contribute rotational and/or thermal energy to planetary systems is consistent with this, and mercury is closer to the sun, receiving a larger amount of flux... but why such a weak B-field?

Solar winds?
Is it possible that the solar winds contribute greatly to earth's magnetosphere while the closer planets would have a detrimental effect by being too close to the source. (try to light a fire in a LP gas pipe, if your too close it won't light off. It just blows out the match) There are many reasons that our little rock is just the right distance from the sun. As for the dyno effect, I'm leaning a bit toward a Tesla type booster (step up transformer). Perhaps not so much creating a field but boosting the energy received from the solar wind.

I understand what your saing about some consequences.
freethis
16th December 2007 - 09:31 AM
in the lower graph provided in the link a divergence is forming and momentum is gaining, what happens when the divergence makes its cross? it could be estimated that the Mia calender predicts this diversion in 2012-2013, based on the momentum of the graph?

http://www.gfz-potsdam.de/pb2/pb23/Mag/main.html

aditional graphs here.

http://www.the-eggs.org/articles.php?id=88


How does this correlate with Global warming and the position the U.N, Bali, And finally the U.S is taking in respect to Al goers outlandish doctored unscientific study, that is being forced down our necks?
why are we being lied to with such urgency?
How does this tie into the obvious weather control, and Tesla's research?

why is there a sudden urgency to give control to the U.N.
If we survive the pole shift will the air be mysteriously cleaner, and contaminates that were once present be ionized in the process of (a sudden shift) in poles.

how much lower will the percentage of oxygen be to air?

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/24882


QUOTE
Therefore take ye keep; lo! I have before-said to you all things.

     But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be made dark, and the moon shall not give her light,

     and the stars of heaven shall fall down, and the virtues that be in heavens, shall be moved.


And I shall give great wonders in heaven above, and signs in earth beneath, blood, and fire, and heat of smoke [blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke].

     The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that the great and the open day of the Lord come [before that the great and open day of the Lord shall come].

     And it shall be, each man whichever shall call to help the name of the Lord, shall be safe.


    And at once [Forsooth anon] after the tribulation of those days, the sun shall be made dark, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the virtues of heavens shall be moved [and the virtues of heavens shall be stirred].

    And then the token of man's Son shall appear in heaven, and then all the kindreds of the earth shall wail [and then all the kindreds, or lineages, of the earth shall wail]; and they shall see man's Son coming in the clouds of heaven, with much virtue and majesty.

ohmy.gif
Zarkov
16th December 2007 - 10:51 AM
QUOTE
Venus has an induced magnetopause,


maybe
but that would be theory and I suspect the theory is inadequate
superposition of magnetic and electric charges are sufficient to create a healthy magnetopause IMO

it is this superposition created by any matter which is differentially spun by the Sun's magnetic field that results in gravity. IMO
all cosmic bodies have this spherical (squashed on the interaction side) field around them

I suspect planetary magnetism is induced by the Sun
paul h
16th December 2007 - 01:43 PM
Zarkov,
>I suspect planetary magnetism is induced by the Sun

I may have done a poor job of expressing it in my last post but, you seem to be saying somewhat the same thing here.

I think that unlike the sun that has very predictable cycles and generates it's own magnetic field with this dyno effect, the earth gets allot of energy from the sun and that our dyno effect acts as a transformer. But in as much as this dyno is somewhat liquid the flows will become random and cause at times chaotic magnetic fields as shown in the pic posted above by am_Unition. As the title of this thread says Global Electric Circuit, any electrical circuit must be closed to cause flow and do work. This has to include the sun as part of our circuit.

Actual record keeping does not go back very far but, in the early parts of this thread we discussed frequency and phase alignments of the electric field affecting the LOD measurements, I wonder if we had a LOD chart that would cover the full 26,000 year procession cycle around the sun how that would look for a correlation of cooling and warming cycles on our planet. In one of the two links below there is a link to a LOD chart, but I can't find it right now (it may have been on another site) This chart did show a correlation with LOD and temps.


http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/dynamo.shtml

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotC...utterflyDiagram

am_Unition
18th December 2007 - 06:52 PM
Paul,
I'm very much looking forward to Mercury MESSENGER's results after it enters orbit in mid March of 2008. The ESA is launching another probe called BepiColombo around 2011, but it'll take another few years to reach Mercury, send back data, and have it all analyzed. I'm going to be thinking a lot about Mercury and Venus in the meantime... One thing that interests me is that Mercury is not in a sychronous rotation with the sun, i.e. not tidally locked like our moon. After 4.6 billion years, the sun's gravity should eventually take it's toll on such a close object, unless some other forces are at work.


Zarkov,
I'm fairly sure the observations made on Mercury's magnetic field (or lack thereof) are direct measurements from satellite fly-bys, verifiable, and peer-reviewed.

Planetary magnetism, magnetic field strength, and conditions deep inside the planet (terrestrial, at least) may very well be a result of solar influences and initial conditions determined during the early formation period of planets, via planetesimal collisions and who knows what else. That's what I've been lead to believe, and I'd love to see it verified. smile.gif


freethis,
I don't know what to tell you. The LOD graph you point out has nothing to do with the Mayan calendar's end 5 years from now. The "momentum building" you reference is actually the LOD returning to a more normal, less deviant state.

Concerning pole reversals, the second site you link to directly states "And what about the future? When can we expect a new reversal of polarity? For about 2000 years the magnetic field strength has decreased continuously, so if the rate remains constant we will experience another magnetic polarity reversal within about another 2000 years."

That's a big if, and neglects the fact that pole reversals themselves take at least a few thousand years to complete, at least by today's models (read the previous posts in this thread). Thanks for the sites though.

..Is that a random Bible quote, or something else entirely? blink.gif
Zarkov
19th December 2007 - 12:31 AM
QUOTE
early formation period of planets, via planetesimal collisions and who knows what else. That's what I've been lead to believe,


I C U adhere to accretion theory re planet formation

I adhere to fission theory, where a planet/moon is core ejected from another body, mainly due to excess positive charge accumulated in the core of the mother.

The Sun's magnetic field extends so far into space that any "planetary field" is immaterial in strength, so every piece of matter in the Solar System is trying to align itself to the Sun's interplanetary field.... cold planets have a frozen field, planets such as Jupiter still have a dynamic field,

and in fact Jupiter's field "speeds up" the spin of the Sun's field at Jupiter distance, so causing an increased "sun gravity" [see pioneer anomaly.]

Mercury was ejected a short time ago IMO so it has only been in existence for a relative short while, it is still somewhat molten... (whereas Mars is cold)

The magnetic fields of the planets are induced alignments... aligning to the equatorial magnetic Bloch wall of the Sun massive magnetic field.
am_Unition
19th December 2007 - 07:51 PM
QUOTE (Zarkov+Dec 19 2007, 12:31 AM)
I adhere to fission theory, where a planet/moon is core ejected from another body, mainly due to excess positive charge accumulated in the core of the mother.

How can fission theory ever explain our solar system planets' nearly circular orbits?

When a mass is ejected from a much larger, rotating mass such as the sun, it will have a highly elliptical orbit. Even eccentricity damping from interactions with other massive bodies or remnant gas could never bring planets anywhere close to their current orbital trajectories.



Anyway, found some juicy sites concerning geophysical fluids (how punny! laugh.gif ) -

http://www.ecgs.lu/ggfc/

http://ivs.nict.go.jp/mirror/publications/gm2004/chao/
rethinker
20th December 2007 - 12:07 AM
Wondered what you guys thought about this forum link on possible cycle 24 start up.


update on possible cycle 24
paul h
20th December 2007 - 12:24 AM
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24/PressRelease.html

cool.gif
TRoc
20th December 2007 - 12:47 AM
Hi all,



Well, she has got a big smile on her face...


User posted image
(2007/12/17)


and here is the "spot", forming behind the magnetically reversed flare/region:

User posted image
(2007/12/18)


and, just to confirm:

User posted image
(2007/12/19)

[images from http://stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov/ ]


Welcome, Cycle 24.

smile.gif


ciao,

T.Roc

am_Unition
20th December 2007 - 03:08 AM
Whoa whoa there guys, it hasn't started up just yet. The backwards magnetic region never quite made it to "spot" status. My bet (and by bet, I mean I'm just repeating what solar guru Leif Svalgaard thinks) is that we have at least 6 months to go until the official start of the cycle.

This is definitely a good sign though... all the bored radio hams went crazy, heh laugh.gif
TRoc
20th December 2007 - 03:38 AM
am_Unition,

laugh.gif

Of course, you are probably right..

nothing "official" yet.


It is going to be interesting though, when it gets into full swing in a few years.



regards,


T.Roc

rethinker
20th December 2007 - 05:08 AM
There goes my T shirt business sad.gif
DogMaEye
20th December 2007 - 09:07 PM
Outstanding concepts here. Please allow me to add two concepts.

1. If the Sun's output increases even slightly, then the current would increase. This current would transform to heat in a resistive layer. Would this have a direct impact on warming of the planet that is distinct from the the solar radiation models?

2. Does the current concept extend to the galactic medium and ultimately to intergalactic space?
paul h
20th December 2007 - 09:48 PM





What comes around , goes around.

I found this and it seems that we are beating the same horse again. note the date.

http://www.physorg.com/news6892.html


barakn
20th December 2007 - 11:46 PM
QUOTE (TRoc+Dec 20 2007, 12:47 AM)
and here is the "spot", forming behind the magnetically reversed flare/region:
....
ciao,

T.Roc

If you are referring to the small dark area to the left of the small light area in the sun's northern hemisphere, than it is not a sunspot. The images you've shown are in the UV/X-Ray range, and sunspots can only be directly seen in visible light. The dark spot is actually a small coronal hole. Since coronal holes are regions of open magnetic fields whereas sunspots are regions of tightly twisted up magnetic fields, coronal holes are actually "anti-sunspots." If a spot were to form, it would not form behind the reversed polarity region, it would be part of the reversed polarity region.
TRoc
21st December 2007 - 01:37 PM
barakn,


Yes, I am aware that that was a small coronal hole.

The confusion may lie between the "apparent" differences (visually) between a "flare", a "spot" and (as you aptly put it) the "anti-spot".


I think that am Unition called it, by stating that the hole was behind, and not part of the twisted field area.


The post was mostly is jest, aimed at the arbitrary means by which committees deem the beginning of a cycle. IE 3 months after it started, or by "vote".

tongue.gif


We are, in most ways, just at the beginning of our understanding of the workings of the Sun, and its effects on the Earth. Seeing things is different bands (other than the visible) is a good example. All of our historical records, and theories, have been based on a very small portion of the spectrum, or what we could observe during an eclipse, for example.


Good job on pointing out where our current ideas are; that should not be over-looked.



regards,

T.Roc

am_Unition
21st December 2007 - 04:19 PM
TRoc is probably onto something there.

Our observations of the solar surface are far from where the dynamo is thought to originate, at the tacholine, where the differentially rotating upper convection zone meets the radiative core, which rotates with a near constant speed. The turbulence created there, about 71% of the distance from the center to the surface, is what's thought to drive the magnetic field.

A completely uniform cycle with very defined periods may exist, but what we have observed is simply the effects on the surface with our sunspot counts. This may be why our documented sun cycles have a fairly variable period. Some are quite longer than others.

Then again, the workings of the dynamo at the tacholine could also be highly variable. If we had it all figured out though, I doubt that I'd be so interested. wink.gif


Paul,
Did you see Duke's recent reassessment? They upped their numbers, theorizing that the sun may be responsible for about 50% of observed warming. My thanks to Arthur for retrieving that.


DogMaEye,
Good questions, been pondering them both myself.

1. With even a nominal increase in magnetic field strength and/or solar wind speed and density, the effects of solar output may become more pronounced on Earth. The gradual weakening of the Earth's magnetic field may also play a big part in helping transfer a greater amount of solar particles and radiation into the Earth's electric circuit. As I've stated before, I'm unable to find any kind of data on how varying magnetic field strengths (in our case a strengthening source [sun] and a weakening receiver [earth]) affects the total plasmic energy transfer that takes place during magnetic reconnection. Obviously, more radiation is able to penetrate the Earth's magnetic field in the same situation, so I think it is only logical that a greater influx of particles would also occur.

In Duke's report linked to above, one of the factors they consider in their calculations is the magnetic moment of the Earth, which is just a fancy term for total magnetic field strength. However, direct observations are limited to the past two decades at best, and some scientists dispute the methods used to calculate the magnetic moment prior to 1947 or so. I know I ranted about this in a previous post.

2. Obviously we don't have much data on this at all, but it is my personal opinion that intragalactic magnetic fields affect solar systems in a way similar to the way our sun affects the Earth. The intragalactic B-field may constrict or expand the heliosphere and affect total solar irradiance, although I can't imagine the strength of a galactic B-field varying on any kind of short time scale. Of course, none of that is remotely verified yet, but hopefully with Voyager 2's recent progress outside of the heliosphere and IBEX being launched next year maybe we'll get a better idea of interstellar space and star interaction with galactic B-fields.

As for intergalactic interactions, that's even more of an open question. Seems to me that galaxies would have to be very close for their magnetic fields to create any kind of force that could even compete with gravity.


Glad there's more people than just me posting.. biggrin.gif
paul h
22nd December 2007 - 01:30 PM
DogMaEye,

> If the Sun's output increases even slightly, then the current would increase. This current would transform to heat in a resistive layer.

As with any circuit I'd say that ohm's law would apply.
What are the variables and what are fixed? vary the current but maintain the resistance and you still have the same output of our magnetosphere and the throughput is then generating more heat to dissipate the added current flow.
So what your saying sounds good to me. The test would be in charting core temp.s
am_Unition
24th December 2007 - 06:49 AM
QUOTE (paul h+Dec 22 2007, 01:30 PM)
As with any circuit I'd say that ohm's law would apply.
What are the variables and what are fixed? vary the current but maintain the resistance and you still have the same output of our magnetosphere and the throughput is then generating more heat to dissipate the added current flow.
So what your saying sounds good to me. The test would be in charting core temp.s

My thoughts exactly... the only problem is directly measuring the temperatures so far beneath us.

I would guess this temperature increase takes place via magnetorestriction and resistivity of the Earth's core composition (still disputed, by the way), especially at the boundary between the core and mantle, where the dynamo that generates Earth's magnetic field is thought to exist. The heat is transferred via conduction and convection outwards, the only way it has to go.

Shouldn't a period of high solar activity cause a temporary mass redistribution outwards as a result of thermal expansion, causing Earth's moment of inertia to increase and the length of day to slightly increase as well? Similarly, during periods of relatively quiet solar episodes, there would be a mass redistribution downwards toward the core, and the Earth's l.o.d. would ultimately see a small shortening. Of course, there will be some lag time before any variation in rotation is measured, because the high pressures deep below us prevent mass from moving quickly.

Sunspot count numbers aren't necessarily the best indicator of how much particle energy reaches Earth, as sometimes coronal mass ejections aren't aimed at earth, and the interplanetary magnetic field may not be oriented south much during solar storms. Also, as the cycle progresses, sunspots migrate towards the coronal equator, and are more likely to send out more energetic/dense solar wind towards Earth later in the cycle. How much energy truly enters geospace is best reflected in the planetary Kp-index, but our records of those only go back to the early 1930's. Sunspot counts are reliable back to about 1750.

It's still fun to compare length of day fluctuations to sunspot counts though smile.gif. Keep in mind possible delay times.

User posted image

User posted image
(image taken from Chao's "Earth Rotational Variations Excited by Geophysical Fluids", same link as at the bottom of page 3 of this thread)

One thing I don't understand is how a higher core angular momentum translates into a longer length of day...



Also, my October 19th post where I thought I correlated a l.o.d. fluctuation to a previous period of high geomagnetic activity was wrong. They go on to say (albeit in fancy scientific jargon dry.gif ) that the CONT02 VLBI campaign data showing a l.o.d. variance was initially incorrect and was corrected using other data sets, after which no unexplained variance was found. Oh well... I still think we're onto something.
barakn
27th December 2007 - 08:25 PM
QUOTE (am_Unition+Dec 24 2007, 06:49 AM)
Sunspot count numbers aren't necessarily the best indicator of how much particle energy reaches Earth, as sometimes coronal mass ejections aren't aimed at earth, and the interplanetary magnetic field may not be oriented south much during solar storms.  Also, as the cycle progresses, sunspots migrate towards the coronal equator, and are more likely to send out more energetic/dense solar wind towards Earth later in the cycle.  How much energy truly enters geospace is best reflected in the planetary Kp-index, but our records of those only go back to the early 1930's.  Sunspot counts are reliable back to about 1750.

The Kp-index is quite useful because of the large number of contributing magnetic observatories, but there is another index that runs much further back in time, the AA* index. Granted it is derived from only two (antipodal) observatories but it extends back to 1868.

www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/GEOMAG/aastar.shtml

The increase in solar activity in the 20th century is quite evident in the graphs of the AA* index.

My inability to post hyperlinks is quite frustrating. mad.gif
TRoc
27th December 2007 - 09:28 PM
Hi barakn,


I think you get that "privilege" after about 45 posts; keep going!


In the mean-time, try pasting the address directly from the bar, including "http://" (and not "www"); sometimes, this forum will translate those into hyper-links for you automatically.


ciao,

T.Roc

Sapo
27th December 2007 - 09:49 PM
QUOTE (TRoc+Dec 19 2007, 07:47 PM)

Well, she has got a big smile on her face...


User posted image
(2007/12/17)

Lovely. Elvish reference? Anor is 'she', Isil is 'he' who follows. Sorry, off-topic, but I do like her enigmatic 'smile'. biggrin.gif
TRoc
27th December 2007 - 10:09 PM
sapo,


A verry lovely smile.

She's wearing big, shiny pearl ear rings (at least in her left ear), and is winking her left eye.


However, is that a tear under her right eye?


Well, she has every right to be in tears; she has been PMS-ing (pre-magnetic shift) for quite some time now. She is more anxious than us to get on with the next cycle! wink.gif

laugh.gif


ciao,

T.Roc

paul h
27th December 2007 - 10:21 PM
barakn,

Good link.

>My inability to post hyperlinks is quite frustrating.

No problem, I can just copy and paste it into my address bar.
Or you could just go post about 35 jokes in the si-fi thread and that should get you there. wink.gif
paul h
28th December 2007 - 12:10 AM
Sorry for the typo, that's the "Sci" -Tech thread.
I found a kink in my keyboard cable. After I straightened it out I found that the "C" had gotten stuck in the middle of the cord. It took me 20 minutes to get it out of there. rolleyes.gif
barakn
28th December 2007 - 12:50 AM
QUOTE (TRoc+Dec 27 2007, 09:28 PM)
In the mean-time, try pasting the address directly from the bar, including "http://" (and not "www"); sometimes, this forum will translate those into hyper-links for you automatically.

That was the first thing I tried. The "http://" is what triggers the rejection. But thanks to you and paul h for the words of encouragement. I'll keep slogging away....
am_Unition
28th December 2007 - 01:36 AM
QUOTE (barakn+Dec 27 2007, 08:25 PM)
The Kp-index is quite useful because of the large number of contributing magnetic observatories, but there is another index that runs much further back in time, the AA* index. Granted it is derived from only two (antipodal) observatories but it extends back to 1868.

www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/GEOMAG/aastar.shtml

The increase in solar activity in the 20th century is quite evident in the graphs of the AA* index.

My inability to post hyperlinks is quite frustrating. mad.gif

User posted image

The trend is very obvious, yes, but as I have earlier remarked, I personally believe that earth-based observations such as the AA* index shouldn't be used as any indicator of long-term solar activity. It is defined as "the overall magnetic disturbance from year to year", and is limited to data taken inside the Earth's variant magnetic field.

As you state, it is based on two antipodal observatories, one in Australia, and the other in England. There is no way to account for the gradual magnetic pole drift nor the gradual decline of the Earth's magnetic field strength. In my opinion, the upward trend of the AA* index is most likely a combination of the two working together, with the slow decline of the field contributing the most to the increase in magnetic disturbance we've observed.

Geomagnetic polar north migration -
User posted image

The southern magnetic pole drifts as well, but not as significantly.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal

QUOTE
At present, the overall geomagnetic field is becoming weaker at a rate which would, if it continues, cause the dipole field to temporarily collapse by 3000–4000 AD. The South Atlantic Anomaly is believed by some to be a product of this. The present strong deterioration corresponds to a 10–15% decline over the last 150 years and has accelerated in the past several years...


(My emphasis)


Leif Svalgaard's research site also goes against the belief of an upward trend in Total Solar Irradiance. His TSI graph shows no significant increase. Unfortunately, I'm not sure which methods he uses, I'd love to find out myself, actually... I'll see if I can corner him on a message board sometime. Rest assured though, the guy's extremely intelligent.


I'd love to see some more recent papers published on coronal field strengths and TSI, it's a better fight than any UFC match.

Oh, and keep posting, barakn, you'll get the privilege of hyperlinks soon enough smile.gif .
am_Unition
28th December 2007 - 01:38 AM
QUOTE (TRoc+Dec 27 2007, 10:09 PM)
Well, she has every right to be in tears; she has been PMS-ing (pre-magnetic shift) for quite some time now. She is more anxious than us to get on with the next cycle! wink.gif

laugh.gif !!
barakn
29th December 2007 - 05:04 AM
QUOTE (am_Unition+Dec 28 2007, 01:36 AM)
User posted image

The trend is very obvious, yes, but as I have earlier remarked, I personally believe that earth-based observations such as the AA* index shouldn't be used as any indicator of long-term solar activity.  It is defined as "the overall magnetic disturbance from year to year", and is limited to data taken inside the Earth's variant magnetic field.

As you state, it is based on two antipodal observatories, one in Australia, and the other in England.  There is no way to account for the gradual magnetic pole drift nor the gradual decline of the Earth's magnetic field strength.  In my opinion, the upward trend of the AA* index is most likely a combination of the two working together, with the slow decline of the field contributing the most to the increase in magnetic disturbance we've observed.

Geomagnetic polar north migration -
User posted image

The southern magnetic pole drifts as well, but not as significantly.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal



(My emphasis)


Leif Svalgaard's research site also goes against the belief of an upward trend in Total Solar Irradiance.  His TSI graph shows no significant increase.  Unfortunately, I'm not sure which methods he uses, I'd love to find out myself, actually... I'll see if I can corner him on a message board sometime.  Rest assured though, the guy's extremely intelligent.


I'd love to see some more recent papers published on coronal field strengths and TSI, it's a better fight than any UFC match.

Oh, and keep posting, barakn, you'll get the privilege of hyperlinks soon enough smile.gif .

Good point about the global magnetic field strength decline. Makes the AA* not a very good measure of the strength of the sun's activity, though probably still a good measure of the timing. Might be useful for correlating solar activity with events here on earth.

And as for posting hyperlinks, I found out how to do it even as a newbie cool.gif , unfortunately I can't mention how my method works because it exploits a bug in the Physorg Forum code. I wouldn't want to allow other newbies to spam the heck out of the forum with clickable links to Vi@gra, pr0n, etc.. Anyone know who writes this site?

http://hyperlinktonowhere.com
paul h
31st December 2007 - 09:23 PM
Hummm,,,


user posted image

am_Unition
1st January 2008 - 09:04 PM
Interesting, very interesting...

Maybe an extended solar cycle that drags on towards the end and prolongs the onset of the next one provides a time of lower energy output that's significant enough to let the earth cool off for a while. So if there's any truth to that, cycle 23's prolonged end should help us out.

Could be a coincidence though, although the curves match well enough that I can't just dismiss it as chance.
templeghost
2nd January 2008 - 05:59 PM
I took a peak at this thread a few days ago and I was fascinated. I finally had some time yesterday to really have a good look at it, and I must say it is a fantastic thread you have here. Clearly, you are really onto something.

I particularly enjoyed the nickel, iron, cobalt and platinum core considerations. I was intrigued by the mention of the nickel acting in an opposite fashion to the iron, and my mind jumped to the nature of nickel when we combine it with other metals. Under such circumstances, passing electricity or intense magnetic fields through a nickel alloy always creates a great deal of heat, as in common electric heating elements.

More generally, I think you have a wonderful gift of insight with these various related theories. You have the ability to help the people understand the nature of the world in which they live, in a way they have never imagined previously.

Specifically, it elucidates very clearly a very powerful concept, that the nature of life on earth is ONE with the heavens. As I was reading through it all, I couldn't help but consider the story of Saint Peter, and that whatever is unleashed in heaven, will be unleashed on the earth also. But who is he that knows the spirit of man from heaven, and the spirit of the beast in the earth?

Well, keep up the great work, wonderful and inspiring information here. It reminds me of a cool song... look at the stars, look how they shine for you.

rethinker
3rd January 2008 - 04:07 AM
templeghost
I agree am_Unition's topic is one of the best here on the forum.
Following his and other posters like paul h, barakn etc., can lead to more and more understanding of this underestimated global circuit.
I have been testing different aspects of my own theory that am_Unition will be able to identify and help clarify when I finish.

I look forward to this thread even though I am busy with my work and research.
am_Unition
3rd January 2008 - 05:51 PM
Gosh guys, thanks!! biggrin.gif Heh, I'm cyber blushing a little bit...

Been really busy with work and family lately, but I'll be back here to stir up mischief within the next few days.

Hope your tests and experiments are going great, rethinker, I look forward to chatting with you about them.

I also intend to bother some of the geophysics professors when I head back to classes in a few weeks and discuss some of the ideas floating around this thread.

Also, just got my hands on a bunch of data CD's from last decade and the International Solar-Terrestrial Physics Program, courtesy of my employer and NASA. Should be fun to analyze. smile.gif
paul h
3rd January 2008 - 10:41 PM
OK back to work, breaks over.
As I have said before one good answer only leads to more questions.

While smurfing the internet (with the AC. DC. thread in mind) I started to think about the "back EMF" of a global electric circuit. It dawned on me that the earth is running on AC current.
We think of AC as running on 50 or 60 Hertz. ( 1 hertz = 1 cycle per second).
What is the (for a better word) "Hertz" of an AC current where 1 cycle = 11 years? And to that how is the back EMF interacting? After all the earth isn't much more than a squirrel motor with some of the parts (inductor) inside the rotor instead of outside. unsure.gif 1 hertz per 11 years is a fraction of time in a 4.5 billion year old circuit. Procession = stator / rotor timing? Polar angle changes = loose rotor bearings?

Kinda thinking about Lenz's Law and Joule heating also.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-electromotive_force
rethinker
4th January 2008 - 12:08 AM
Good work Paul
I don't want to get back to work
mad.gif
However if you are considering AC, where and at what point do you see this change or can you say how the alternating current alternates on Earth?

Imagine being approached by am_Unition. I hope he can find someone who gives him some new data, or an idea of how it all works. He seems to be able to handle most of the theories about the sun/earth interconnection.
paul h
4th January 2008 - 11:52 AM
>However if you are considering AC, where and at what point do you see this change or can you say how the alternating current alternates on Earth?

Well I sure didn't mean AC in an actual way, biggrin.gif
But in as much as the sun changes polarity ~ every 11 years one should be able to chart that in a sine wave like you would do with AC. You could see sun spots (solar storms) as dirty voltage. on a galactic scale, the energy from the sun charted in the form of a sine wave would reach across the universe, Compare that to the size and time scale of the universe it would have a similarity to a flow chart of an electric motor running in our small size and time scale. (Other than the much larger amplitude and wave length that is).

>how the alternating current alternates on Earth?
I'm not sure. But a motor does not show an effect as the polarity switches while it is running. Or, We may be receiving an AC like energy from the sun but the core acts as a rectifier and the energy flows more like a DC form through the earth.

Any way my thoughts were about the back EMF. in more than one web site that I was reading about this effect I found mention of a theoretical motor running with frictionless bearings and superconductive windings. It strikes me that this was describing the earth. So what is the governor to prevent over rev,ing?

am_Unition
4th January 2008 - 04:04 PM
Paul,

You guys are really stretching my understanding of our solar system smile.gif

One thing I'm fairly certain about though is that the currents we receive from the sun don't alternate polarity. That is to say, it is irrelevant whether polar north on the Sun is (roughly) in the same direction as polar north on Earth or not. The heliospheric current sheet should remain unchanged.

Wikipedia defines the current sheet as the plane in which the oppositely polarized coronal magnetic field lines tangle up and instead of finding their way back into the sun (which would form a magnetic dipole structure) they extend outwards into the heliosphere in the plane of the solar equator, give or take 10,000 kilometers. Also, something else that is interesting to note is that the electric field in the current sheet is actually directed inwards toward the sun, despite that the solar wind, which carries the inward electric current, obviously flows outwards. The circuit is closed by a radially outwards flowing electric current from the poles of the sun.

However, it certainly is an alternating current in terms of intensity, but not polarity... maybe this is what you meant anyways? There's always the possibility that our current theories are flawed, or need additional adjustments, hence why we're all here cool.gif .

So we're (the Earth is) constantly moving perpendicular to this inward electric current, while rotating counterclockwise (viewed from the north downwards). Any ideas for mathematical formulations? I sorely need to take an advanced electricity and magnetism class, since all I've tackled as of yet are basic circuits, but at least Lenz's Law was included.

QUOTE (paul h+)

So what is the governor to prevent over-reving?


I think it could be a combination of tidal friction on geophysical fluids and the core/mantle system's high pressures preventing it from behaving like fluids not subjected to extreme pressures would act.

In fact, it has occured to me that to prove our theory of a Sun-powered Earth rotation, all we'd have to do would is calculate exactly how much tidal friction the Moon and Sun (and even the other planets if you got bored) induce on the atmosphere, oceans, and inner earth, and compare this against the known rotation speed decay rate. They do have a value for this, a 2.3 millisecond longer length of day change per century, but any effects of solar energy causing our Earth to spin faster would be buried in this value.

The only problem is that the mathematical calculation of induced tidal friction is fairly much impossible laugh.gif
paul h
4th January 2008 - 07:20 PM
am_Unition,
>You guys are really stretching my understanding of our solar system

Thank you,,, (or) I'm sorry,,, you pick which ever applies best.

>However, it certainly is an alternating current in terms of intensity, but not polarity

OK, polarity is the wrong way to express it. but could this be plotted? I think you see what I mean about the scale of the two sine waves' sizes. ( universe vs a small motor here on earth). I have looked at the input voltage for a motor on an oscilloscope and I do understand the difference between a hard wired motor reacting to the voltage and the voltage reacting to the load from the motor would be much different than a wireless power supply like the earth / sun. but just a hunch that there would be some type of detectable reaction in the earth (LOD, heat/cooling, earthquakes or all of these) from the sun's eb and flow (and sudden bursts of power). If one had the data over lapped with a sine wave of the output from the sun. I know that a motor will run hotter (not to mention the electric bill) if it gets too much dirty voltage.
What are your thoughts about the back EMF?
rethinker
5th January 2008 - 03:19 AM
Thanks Paul
I see what you were saying now.

>how the alternating current alternates on Earth?
>I'm not sure. But a motor does not show an effect as the polarity switches while it is running. Or, We may be receiving an AC like energy from the sun but the core acts as a rectifier and the energy flows more like a DC form through the earth<

I think you may not realize that the action of the motor is the effect of the AC.
It indeed would react different if you stopped the AC.Agree?
wink.gif
paul h
5th January 2008 - 12:07 PM
rethinker

>I think you may not realize that the action of the motor is the effect of the AC.
It indeed would react different if you stopped the AC.Agree?

I haven't woke up good yet so I'm not sure what you mean? unsure.gif
Yes a motor would react if you stop the AC, but it would also react if you just alter the power supply, even in just a small way. (or the load). so perhaps I have missed what you point is. could you rephrase it for my pre-coffee brain.
rethinker
5th January 2008 - 03:07 PM
QUOTE (paul h+Jan 5 2008, 07:07 AM)
rethinker

>I think you may not realize that the action of the motor is the effect of the AC.
It indeed would react different if you stopped the AC.Agree?

I haven't woke up good yet so I'm not sure what you mean? unsure.gif
Yes a motor would react if you stop the AC, but it would also react if you just alter the power supply, even in just a small way. (or the load). so perhaps I have missed what you point is. could you rephrase it for my pre-coffee brain.

Hi Paul
I ran out of coffee so this may still sound strange blink.gif

I was responding to your statement that a motor does not show an effect as the polarity switches while it is running.
It is my belief that a motor running on AC shows the effect of the AC clear and very easy to see by just watching it spin.
A motor that runs on AC is built to let alternating current flow in a pattern that indeed is a direct effect of the AC reaction.
You can see the effect, and you can feel the effect of the controlled current as it continues to make a motor react to the AC by spinning.

Also I have been experimenting with a way to show how (using am_Unition's suggested topic,The Global Electric Circuit )creates the spin of earth itself.
You suggest this in previous posts, and I want you to know this has been my 5.2 years of research. I am having positive results.
I have named my Theory The H Theory.
Please continue to research into this as far as you have time to. Your posts are exceptionally interesting.
paul h
5th January 2008 - 06:19 PM
rethinker,

The caffeine finally kicked in. I see what your saying and agree. I have done a poor job of expressing my thoughs. Let me see if I can explain it differently. (or just make it worse)


You had first ask >... or can you say how the alternating current alternates on Earth?

In my poor reply was trying to say that the motor didn't pulse, It kept spinning smoothly. My thought was that the back EMF would keep this pulse from being detectable (in an analog motor). But now that I think about it, I wasn't tanking into account the size / time scale of the motor.

Looking at the earth size motor and resulting RPY (revolution per year). When talking about a LOD measurements with a variance of microseconds per day. Compare that to the frequency of power from the sun over millions of years. The LOD change would be a microscopic amount of time in it's sine wave.

Back to the small motor. If we could scale the time of 1 hertz to the same equivalent microscopic amount of time that the earth sized one is running at, then the small motor should show a reaction as you say. In the small motor this would happen so fast that it may not be detectable but on the earth sized one we should see an effect due to our time reference.

Watching the earth spin, heat, cool, bulge, contract and react would be like watching the small motor run in super slow motion with a string gage monitoring it's vibrations.

Zarkov
6th January 2008 - 03:49 AM
QUOTE
it certainly is an alternating current


clearly it is a differentially driven standing wave circulation

I have calculated all the cosmic parameters, and derived all the formulas
but of course established theory is held close by all, all ignorant sheep.
rethinker
6th January 2008 - 12:22 PM
QUOTE (am_Unition+Jan 4 2008, 11:04 AM)


However, it certainly is an alternating current in terms of intensity, but not polarity...

maybe this is what you meant anyways? There's always the possibility that our current theories are flawed, or need additional adjustments, hence why we're all here cool.gif .

So we're (the Earth is) constantly moving perpendicular to this inward electric current, while rotating counterclockwise (viewed from the north downwards). Any ideas for mathematical formulations? I sorely need to take an advanced electricity and magnetism class, since all I've tackled as of yet are basic circuits, but at least Lenz's Law was included.

It helps to quote the whole sentence and who wrote it so we do not have to go find what you are quoting.

Looks like this may be the sentence you partly quoted.
paul h
8th January 2008 - 12:26 AM
Zarkov,
>clearly it is a differentially driven standing wave circulation

Now I remember reading something about using an acoustic standing wave for circulation (cooling) of refrigerant in a large gas compressor.
paul h
12th January 2008 - 12:55 AM
All,

Rattlebacks? (devil's torque)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcQMoZr_x7Q&feature=related

unsure.gif
TRoc
12th January 2008 - 03:06 PM
Hi all,


So that you know when I "mostly jest", that means the other 49% is a "serious speculation".

biggrin.gif

TRoc Posted: Dec 19 2007, 09:47 PM
QUOTE
Welcome, Cycle 24.



~27 days from the "big smile" on 12/17/07

User posted image

she is still smiling

User posted image
01/12/08 - NASA/STEREO


Now, both "eyes" are closed, and the "tear" is from her left, instead of right.


CH's are much more "cyclical" than the "floating" spots. What we have based current theory on, is 1 octave of visible light. There may be as many as 270 "possible" octaves available (based on Planck scale). There will be many more cycles to "dis-cover".


If we spin the Sun backwards, so that her "ear ring" is just coming into view, we arrive at 01/04/08

User posted image


this is the "Official Day" of the start of Cycle 24.


http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/10...4.htm?list46072
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Welcome, Cycle 24.



~27 days from the "big smile" on 12/17/07

User posted image

she is still smiling

User posted image
01/12/08 - NASA/STEREO


Now, both "eyes" are closed, and the "tear" is from her left, instead of right.


CH's are much more "cyclical" than the "floating" spots. What we have based current theory on, is 1 octave of visible light. There may be as many as 270 "possible" octaves available (based on Planck scale). There will be many more cycles to "dis-cover".


If we spin the Sun backwards, so that her "ear ring" is just coming into view, we arrive at 01/04/08

User posted image


this is the "Official Day" of the start of Cycle 24.


http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/10...4.htm?list46072
"On January 4, 2008, a reversed-polarity sunspot appeared—and this signals the start of Solar Cycle 24," says David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center.



If we had "rotation numbers", then I'm "exactly" right. I'll settle for being "3 to 6 months" more accurate. wink.gif


Predictions are a "risky business". Here's to "small chips" .



regards,

T.Roc
paul h
13th January 2008 - 01:24 AM
TRoc,

Any EQ predictions from this?
rethinker
13th January 2008 - 03:56 AM
QUOTE (Zarkov+Jan 5 2008, 10:49 PM)

clearly it is a differentially driven standing wave circulation

I have calculated all the cosmic parameters, and derived all the formulas
but of course established theory is held close by all, all ignorant sheep.

Zarkov
If you can overlook my sarcasm, I would like to know more or your thoughts huh.gif
Zarkov
13th January 2008 - 05:34 AM
Crude Overview

first Mach's principle
where each spin system drives or is driven by other systems
so the entire Universe acts like a gearbox of cogs

Field spin is either toroidal (energy emitting) or poloidal (energy absorbing)

so the Sun's field spin (toroidal) drives say... the Earth field (poloidal) spin,

and the Earth's field spin drives the Moon's field spin, .....and it is the resultant of these field spins that manifests as gravity +/-

The velocity of orbiting bodies around a central body characterises the surrounding field spin

so at the Earth's surface the surface grazing velocity (SGV) is 7.91 km/sec

This is observed on Earth as the Schumann resonance measured at about 8 cycles/sec

The field around all matter is due to the superposition of the magnetic and electric charges inherent in all matter ( neutrons and electrons ) and for say Earth (or any planet) this field extends out to the L1 and L2 points with the Sun. The Sun's field contains and surrounds the field around all solar bodies.

So instead of GR's gravity wells, we really have an increasing field pressure as one approaches the centre of spin.... a bubble Universe

To understand this structure you would need to actually do calculations

I intend to write a simulation but haven't had time as yet.

NOTE
[1] the Lagrangian points ARE NOT as established theory would determine
The relation IS NOT a 1/r^2 but a 1/r^3
so it is a magnetic Bloch Wall point.

[2] The centre of spin is the central body around which an orbiting body orbits
so the Sun is the centre of spin for the solar planets while the Earth is the centre of spin for the Moon. The Moon orbits the Earth and DOES NOT orbit the Sun.

[3] from this the structure of the Universe can be determined, and from calculation Black Holes are just centres of intense energy and therefore intense field spin.... and are not centres of extreme "attraction" as (Newtonian or GR) theory would determine. "Black Holes" appear to be the main drivers of Galaxies, while all Galaxies are all spin linked.

I have equations that accurately depict these claims.

The proof is in the calculation of the L1 and L2 points
NASA has come to the conclusion that the Earth-Sun L1 point is unstable... since their craft needs station keeping to be relatively stable.... they are out in their point by at least a million km.... they are too far from the Sun

OK... you say.... woo woo
well The Moon-Earth L! is the proof of the pudding.... LOL
only recently by MUCH trial and error has a "reasonable" determination been made
of this point and this empirical value is still out by thousands of KM.... not enough to prevent Moon orbits as in the past
BUT unless the L1 and L2 points are accurately known, space travel CAN NOT be user-friendly... crash landings are not useful. I can determine these points ABSOLUTELY by theory.

Thanks for your interest. Maybe you need a re-think !!
smile.gif
TRoc
13th January 2008 - 09:39 PM
paul h,


QUOTE
Any EQ predictions from this?



No, not really. I'm assuming you mean by the new cycle beginning? Remember, we are at a "minimum" in that phenomenon.


The thing is, is that I am not studying the relationship between coronal holes (CH) and "sun spots", or sun spots at all; just CH's and EQ's. AKAIK, more spots does not guarantee more holes. In general, this might be true though. Spots do migrate more across the solar equator during a cycle change.


If more spots in general, means more holes, then for the "overlap period" (of cycle 23 and 24), we should get more EQ's if my hypothesis is correct. This will already have taken place, because I think it ts safe to assume the the "overlap" would extend both before, and after, the official cycle change. 2007 has been an "abnormally high" year for EQ's; we could then expect 2008 to be as well.



regards,

T.Roc

rethinker
13th January 2008 - 11:37 PM
That's good stuff.

>The field around all matter is due to the superposition of the magnetic and electric charges inherent in all matter ( neutrons and electrons ) and for say Earth (or any planet) this field extends out to the L1 and L2 points with the Sun. The Sun's field contains and surrounds the field around all solar bodies.<

Do you think this can be shown in an image? Or can you direct me to more on this.
Thanks for sharing your research.

If all the universe is working in a cog effect, would it not reduce to an end at some point? This indeed is how gearing works. The energy from the source will eventually die.



paul h
5th February 2008 - 10:28 PM
It was mentioned in this thread that the Messenger space craft would be coming in soon. So here (some) of it is.

http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/news_room/details.php?id=58

quote from site:
“MESSENGER found that Mercury’s intrinsic magnetic field is almost identical to what it was 30 years ago. After correcting for the contribution from the solar wind interaction, the mean dipole has the same intensity to within a few percent and has the same slight tilt. The search is now on for structure in the internal field to identify its source,” said Brian Anderson, the Magnetometer (MAG) instrument scientist.


the contribution from the solar wind ?
am_Unition
6th February 2008 - 05:50 PM
QUOTE (paul h+Feb 5 2008, 10:28 PM)
the contribution from the solar wind ?

Solar wind acts to constrict magnetospheres sunwards, and drags them out tailwards. I'm guessing this is what they're referring to.

I've been considering the dilemma of terrestrial magnetospheres (and lack thereof), and this is what I've come up with so far.

Mercury initially had plate tectonics, which acted as a mechanism to maintain the heat gradient necessary to jump start convection in the mantle, giving rise to a magnetic field dynamo. Perhaps the reason why Mercury's core has maintained convection is because the solar wind does, in fact, contribute to planetary core heat by solar wind interacting with magnetospheres. Also consider that Mercury is 60% closer to the sun than Earth, and receives a much greater amount of solar flux than we do.

Venus's lack of an intrinsic magnetic field (not counting the small induced magnetopause resulting from ionosphere and solar wind interaction) might have something to do with its retrograde rotation. The backwards rotation was probably caused by collisions early in the formation of the solar system. Of course, Uranus has a retrograde rotation as well (although more erratic), and the magnetic field of Uranus is stronger than that of Earth. Very curious.

Earth's magnetic field is... well, what we've been talking about for the last 5 pages.

Mars may have started out with plate tectonics, favorable core/mantle temperature gradients, and thus a sizable magnetic field. But due to it being 50% further from the sun than Earth, Mars didn't receive enough solar flux energy to keep its dynamo hot, and it eventually died out.

Again, these aren't much more than my guesses. The prevailing theory is that the high temperatures still seen in the Earth's core are a result of leftover energy from planetary accretion and radioactive decay. Mercury, being much smaller, should have radiated away all of its heat already, hence the surprise of it having an intrinsic magnetic field.

Anyways, I'll always be skeptical of "prevailing theory" tongue.gif
am_Unition
19th May 2008 - 04:43 PM
Started some work on STROFIO today, so I went digging for the latest headlines -


http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Science/2008/..._proposed/5324/

QUOTE
Although mostly made of iron, Mercury's core also contains sulfur. The scientists subjected an iron-sulfur mixture in a laboratory to pressures and temperatures similar to those expected to exist within Mercury. When they analyzed the mixture with a scanning electron microscope, they found the iron atoms had condensed into flakes.

Their analyses show the iron flakes fall toward the planet's center as the iron-sulfur mixture in the outer core slowly cools. As the iron flakes sink, they are replaced with a lighter, sulfur-rich liquid. The resulting convection currents produce Mercury's weak magnetic field.




Definitely a good step in solving the mystery, but this still leaves the question of the heat gradient (necessary for mantle/core convection) completely untouched.

Consider the Earth's heat gradient and Mars's lack of one as somewhat of base examples.

How fast a planet cools off from the accretion disk formation process is a product of mainly three factors: composition, density, and radius. Two of Mercury's properties may explain the existing heat gradient it possesses, but one throws the other two into question.

One factor in favor of explaining Mercury's core physics is composition - there should be a greater abundance of radioactive elements in Mercury than Earth. Via radioactive decay this could provide heat from the core as the heavier radioactive elements gravitate inwards more than lighter, stable elements. We need much more data on the concentrations, possible (an)isotropies, etc.

Mercury's density is just slightly less than that of Earth, so this also works in favor of retaining heat. If you are familiar with the factor "rho" in the heat equation, you knew this already.

The major issue arises when you consider Mercury's smaller radius. As aforementioned, planets with a smaller radius radiate heat away faster than planets with a larger radius.
Consider a radius tending towards zero. The volume of a sphere will decrease quicker than the surface area, as the order of "r" in the volume equation is three, whereas the order of "r" in surface area is only two. This means less volume to contain heat, and more surface area to radiate away heat than a sphere of a larger radius.

Although the ratio of radii and density of Mercury compared to other planets is well known, the abundance of radioactive elements isn't. How heavily these factors weigh in to determine overall heat retention/radiation isn't quantified either (not that I could find).



The solution - send more satellites! biggrin.gif
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.