flipping of earth's poles

ke

e s

This

A phenomena of pole flipping has never been observed at any scale and is not necessary to explain the facts. Change of pole position does. Electricity in the Earth's core is also unnecessary and not even true as iron is already naturally magnetic.

Your refrigerator magnet is not far from the truth of the Earth''s core. Mitch Raemsch

e

Electricity is not based on liquid.

The magnetosphere is not based on electrically induced magnetism but on ferromagnetism.

Mitch Raemsch

Yes, and they ring. The Earth is a big resonant circuit with a frequency of about 1/12,000 years. :-)

Cheers! Rich

ke

The magnetosphere doesn't even fluctuate in strength let alone collapse completely in order to flip poles.

Mitch Raemsch

Ring, resonate, oscillate... it all means the same. Bells ring, LC circuits oscillate and organ pipes resonate. Mind you, I don't know where you get 12,000 years from when it's

25,000 years...

ake

. y

ts

The magnetosphere has never been measured to do that. Thus there is no evidence for even a partial fluctuation.

Mitch Raemsch

make

ld

ed.

.

ncy

uits

Excluding/obfuscating objective evidence works every time for you, doesn't it.

~ BG

Iron is not naturally magnetic in the earths core.

1) Curie temperatures of iron: 1043 K Source: CRC manual. This means that iron is not ferromagnetic above 1043 K. 2) Temperature at core-mantle boundary of the earth: 3900 K. Link to source: %20earth&f=3Dfalse It gets even hotter at the center, but that is the minum temperature in the entire earths core. 3) 3900 K>>1043 K QED: Iron is not ferromagnetic at the earths core.

I would like to correct an earlier comment of mine here. The Curie temperature of a material is the same as the ferromagnetic critical temperature. I earlier said that the two were not the same.

ew.php?id=3D172175

Your answer should have been the magnetization of the frozen lava at the bottom of the sea. That is what was measured. The flips are a deduction. Note: Rock at the bottom of the sea has a temperature far less than that of the Curie temperature of iron, which is 1043 K.

/view.php?id=3D172175

175

That is an unfair analogy. The Warmingists (i.e., man made global warming) may be wrong, and maybe not. However, the facts don't unambiguously contradict their position. There is lots of uncertainty in the global warming data, so there is a legitimate controversy. There is a lot of noise on surface mean temperatures, which could hide significant trends. Furthermore, there is high frequency noise on that plot Gore showed, and on other pieces of information. However, the temperature at the center of the earth is FAR greater than the Curie temperature. 3900 K>>>1043 K. There is far less noise on the geomagnetic measurements at the bottom of the ocean. Furthermore, the direction of the North magnetic pole has been changing slowly but measurably for the last 100 years. So I think the case against a ferromagnetic core is a lot stronger. I am not sure the facts in the global warming debate warrant the extreme solutions being promoted at this time. That is a completely different debate, and should not be dragged down to the level of this thread |:-)

view.php?id=3D172175

s

The magnetization of frozen lava would only record pole position change as the magnetosphere orientation changed. Any flip would not record as you cannot tell north from south.

Mitch Raemsch

The magnetization of the frozen material has a absolute direction. It points either to the north or the south. This is the direction that the magnetic field of the earth pointed when the lava was frozen. The other variable measured is the distance from the rift or subduction zone. Lava is emitted from the rift. As soon as it is emitted, it freezes and falls below the Curie temperature. When it falls below the Curie temperature, it keeps a magnetization which has a direction pointing in the direction of the magnetic field at that time. The material then moves outward from the rift. The result is bands of material, where the magnetization flips periodically with distance. However, the magnetization at each band has an absolute direction. Magnetization points to the south magnetic pole that existed when the lava froze. The direction is well defined. I think the old Burt is coming back. Others would say there is no change. However, your questions seemed semicoherent to me for a while.

What is pointing north or south? Nothing of the sort is being seen. What is being measured is the change of magnetic orientation of the poles themselves. I'll put my money on it.

Flip itself has been completely disproven.

Mitch Raemsch

North and South are just labels. Remanant magnetism yields two basic quantities, intensity and magnetic inclination. You can tell whether the lines of force were basically pointed "up" or "down".

Either a section of magnetic sea-floor somehow oscillated between two hemispheres and experienced a change in polarity or the magnetic field itself switched polarity. We can safely discount the former which leaves us with the latter.

The orientation of the magnetic field axis does change. That is the point. During reversals it changes dramatically.

I'd be happy to take it.

Wrong again.

Please consult Merrill and McElhinney, before I own your wife and kids too. Its an older reference, but more than adequately addresses your ignorance.

Stuart

when

s no

.

Change of magnetosphere strength has never been observed. How then can we say it changes strength all the way to zero? Flip hasn't been observed on any magnetic scale. Flip is unobserved but magnetosphere orientation change or pole migration is though slow.

Mitch Raemsch

Are you out of your mind?

Its changing as we speak. The Dipole field is decaying at something like

5% per century. This is fairly rapid decay.

Stuart

ote:

n

not

e e

ava

or

t

has

at

s h

ted when

re is no

hile.

d

No. Its not. That is just a bold faced lie. Your source is a crank. There is no such thing as magnetosphere decay. It is ferromagnetic. I ask you for proof otherwise.

Mitch Raemsch

:

ion

ld not

ute

the

lava

ft or

s

it

ch has

that

is

ith

te

isted when

re is no

while.

wo

eld

1) The fact that the North pole migrates. Permanent magnets don't spontaneously migrate. Permanent magnets are solid bodies that remain static in their body reference frame. You claim that the undersea measurements can be explained by pole migration. This is your claim. If the magnetic dipole of the earth was really caused by ferromagnetism, the earth would be a permanent magnet. The precession of the earths spin axis would be followed, quite closely, by the precession of the earths magnetic axis. That means the north pole of a permanent magnet couldn't migrate, let alone flip. Your refrigorator magnet is a good example. The poles of the refrigorator magnet don't lag behind the axes of the magnet. A compass needle is another case. When the needle turns, the magnetic dipole of the needle continues to follow the physical direction of the needle. The magnetic dipole caused by ferromagnetism can't "migrate" the way you said it does. 2) The fact that the earths dipole flips every 500 KY. Permanent magnets don't spontaneously flip. Number 1 should be more convincing to you than number 2. You don't believe that the magnetic dipole flips. However, you said that you believe that the pole migrates. The very fact it migrates should indicate to you that the core of the earth is not a permanent magnet.