Comments on: New theory on Earth’s Magnetic Field: Theory interesting, reporting botched

By: Wow

Wow — Mon, 14 Aug 2017 15:02:43 +0000

Why not google for it? I do know, at least past the “there needs to be some magnetism there already”, but why bother if you can’t do the least amount of work yourself?

By: Navin kumar singh

Navin kumar singh — Mon, 14 Aug 2017 03:48:48 +0000

Explain the causes of Earth’s magnetism on the basis of modern scientific observations? Anyone please

By: Andrew

Andrew — Sat, 26 Mar 2011 21:45:54 +0000

This might help answer that question: http://tinyurl.com/4on9z59

By: Deltron

Deltron — Sat, 26 Mar 2011 21:44:43 +0000

Not a geomag expert, just asking for info. If the formal definition of a magnetic pole is where a magnetic compass, on a horizontal axis, would point straight down, do we not now, as per the World Magnetic Model, 2005, vertical secular variation, now have two north magnetic poles? According to weathercast forecaster, with the new one in Siberia, half way between Lake Baikal and the Arctic Ocean, being by a whisker the stronger, and hence now the formal magnetic north pole?

By: Deltron

Deltron — Sat, 26 Mar 2011 21:38:24 +0000

Not a geomag expert, just asking for info. If the formal definition of a magnetic pole is where a magnetic compass, on a horizontal axis, would point straight down, do we not now, as per the World Magnetic Model, 2005, vertical secular variation, now have two north magnetic poles? With the new one in Siberia, half way between Lake Baikal and the Arctic Ocean, being by a whisker the stronger, and hence now the formal magnetic north pole? Have I got this all wrong? And if not, has no-one noticed? Or, where has it been published?

By: Gary Otto

Gary Otto — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 00:57:35 +0000

“Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius — and a lot of courage — to move in the opposite direction.”

“Imagination is more important than knowledge.”

“Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.”

“We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”

“Education is what remains after one has forgotten everything he learned in school.”

I’m sure by reading the comments, that all of the participants consider themselves intellectually superior to Mr. Einstein. My suggestion is, listen to those who speak to enlighten, not those who speak to impress.

Trying to baffle with bullshit is so 70’s

By: David shepherd

David shepherd — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 13:15:23 +0000

Earths electromagnetic feild is caused by to positive magnetic forces. 1st, salt has magnetic properties the constant movement of the oceans salt water oceans causes electrostatic energy which acts as a conductor, normally this energy would just be absorbed by the earth but the earths hot core acts as a thermal conductor having it’s own magnetic properties, these 2 magnetic forces pushing against each other causes a loop that we identify as earths electromagnentic feild. A space probe recently found that Venus had no electromagnetic feild even though it almost certainly has an iron core, there is no salt water oceans to cause an opposing effect so it could not be detected from space.

By: wasave

wasave — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 17:38:40 +0000

that was awesome huge great!!! any more therios

By: forrest noble

forrest noble — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 22:54:31 +0000

The above theory, I think, is closer to being correct than the prevailing standard dynamo model.

I think the general idea is a good one. There are many reasons why I don’t like the Earth core dynamo theory. The primary reason has to do with our observations concerning planetary magnetism in general. The biggest magnetic field is Jupiter then Saturn; Neptune and Uranus have unusual magnetic fields and do not seem to conform to the core based theory of planetary magnetism. Instead I ascribe to the atmospheric interactions as the primary cause/ source.

On Jupiter the atmosphere and core are rapidly spinning. The layers of atmosphere interact with each other causing ionization of gases and probably continuous electrical currents within the atmosphere as well as probable continuous lightening. These electrical currents would accordingly flow in the same direction as the “air currents.” This theory also better explains the magnetic fields of Neptune, Uranus and Mars. Mercury is close to the sun so the solar wind of about a million miles per hour would accordingly be the cause of its magnetic field.

Translating this to the Earth it would be the interactions between the ionized atmosphere, the land and the sea rather than the molten core. The sea would have electrical currents that would coincide with the spin of the Earth which causes the prevailing winds. The largest solar storms in time accordingly would reverse the Earth’s magnetic fields based upon which pole large solar wind “clouds” would interact with.

By: Philip Bruce Heywood

Philip Bruce Heywood — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 07:05:05 +0000

What is proposed as the cause behind a planet’s core being ‘elongated … N-S’, and what could cause it to change to bulge the other way, which I take to be the plane of the equator?
(Intuitively, I think of it as bulging in the plane of the equator, as the Earth in toto bulges.)

Bulgings and counter bulgings — any known mechanisms?