Robittybob1

The Earth includes the Inner and Outer Cores so my concept is that all parts are capable of contributing to the transfer of angular momentum to the Moon. How you have been able to separate the contributions has not been demonstrated. Look, as far as what you were on about when you were talking about the surface rotation wasn't clear. So I deny that I made any absurd objections, all I was trying to say was the rotational speed of the Earth (the day length measurement) could be measured from any point of view. (So we were probably talking about different things actually.) Those sort of questions require thought. Does the Inner Core have a magnetic field, and where could it be coming from if it does? There's a good question. In my hypothesis the IC is being magnetised by the more rapid flow of molten metal past one side of the IC (but over a whole day that "side" completes the entire circumference of the IC) As I said if you have to put the whole volume of the OC through two different sized ports, the flow rate through the smaller port compared to the larger port would be inversely proportional to the ratio of port sizes. We know the volume and the size of the port and the period so the average flow rate should be able to be calculated from that. That paper backed up an idea I had of the IC. I thought it should be tidally displaced, so I searched the internet for information on that topic and found that paper, but I was initially surprised by the amount of displacement he (Martin Wolf) had calculated. I ran the figure past a person with a PhD in Physics and he thought that was only a minor displacement and not improbable. In this thread we worked out how much that displacement would alter the ratio of port sizes, the 0.77% figure. Granted it is rather simple physics but it still is physics.

The angular momentum was shown to be conserved; that is all. It was not demonstrated that the tidal bulge on the surface accounted for 100% of the quantity. We had already discussed this. Since you referred to the rules of the Speculation section of the forum I have noted that I don't have to provide full evidence but just a testable hypothesis and it is clear that is what I have done. At no time have I refused to discuss the idea, but you can't expect me to have all the answers. The idea is testable and we could try and work out how to test it. I don't have to falsify my own hypothesis, it just has to be falsifiable, which it is. The average change in flow rate was calculated previously and it was inversely proportional to the port sizes for the whole of the OC material had to go through both ports every full rotation. Whether there were regions of higher than average flows that would have to be made on analysis of a model of the situation. I'm not making predictions regarding this. Using the right hand rule a current past the IC would cause a magnetic field in the Inner Core, the polarity would depend on the net average charge of the OC molten metal. I think the word "torque" is the right word for although the principle displacement is due to gravitational forces the IC ends up blocking the flow of the OC material past it and hence there is drag which I speculate will mean the IC is longer in a direct in line arrangement but pushed forward of the Earth -Moon gravitational center line so like the tidal bulge it will be forward and hence tidally accelerating the Moon as well.

I have not rejected that either. The physics in support of the mechanism depends on the tidally displaced IC and the math of that was dealt with by Martin Wolf. Once you can accept that idea the physics of the increased flow rate through the narrow side is supporting the concept that it will produce increased motion of a conductor (or a current) through a magnetic field. The torque required to hold the IC in the displaced position transfers momentum to the Moon (as part of the tidal acceleration of the Moon). So have you rejected the idea of the tidally displaced Inner Core by the words ".... this mechanism, which has no evidence to support its existence"? You don't seem to be making yourself very clear.

And I'm sure I've said it is not the magnetic field that does this but the same mechanism that produces the magnetic field contributes to this. The title to the thread was not made up by me so don't use that as some sort of guide. It all depends on the idea of a tidal displacement of the Earth's inner core. Unless one can decide whether to accept that idea or not there is no way I can develop the concept of using that displacement to move a metal conductor faster on one side of the IC. That is why I found the Lorenz's force law so interesting, for I have always thought of the moving OC molten metal as a current but it might be better to think of it in terms of a moving conductor in a magnetic field. I agree and have admitted the full concept is not developed yet, and I'm still working on it. The forum debate keeps you on track.

I believe I have tried to build that model, but all along you have tried to deflect me into studying the geodynamo. If you don't want to commit to the idea is there anyone else who is in agreement with Martin Wolf? It seems rather difficult to build a model showing that this displacement is part of what transfers momentum to the Moon unless you can accept that the tidal displacement occurs in the first place.

My hypothesis was dependent on the idea of a tidally displaced Inner Core. Did you ever answer my question as to whether you agreed with Martin Wolf that the IC could be displaced by up to 60 km? Trying to understand the dynamics of the Geodynamo is another matter all together. Could you please tell the forum whether you agree with a tidally displaced IC?

But does that mean it falls straight down or is it going to be affected by the Coriolis effect? If it was a metal it would at the very least be a conductor moving in a magnetic field. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/genwir2.html Which hand do I use for that? It is interesting that velocity comes into that.

What about if the bullet is fired from the front of the car out the back window, do you then subtract the speeds? (same speed but with opposite velocity) as soon as it goes through the window will it just drop to the ground? I think that is the case and the previous case was right too where the bullet was fired forward. (Added when they have the same velocity as the car.)

An interesting comparison would be the surface area of the IC compared to surface area of the OC. IC radius 1220 km OC radius 2260 km Sphere surface area, A = 4 * π * r ^ 2 That calculates out that the OC has 3.43 times the surface area of the IC. So there could well be blobs of "cold" hence denser molten material that falls down through the OC gravitated to the IC. That would be a type of "reverse convection". Work by Gary Glatzmaier has come up again. The Geodynamo! http://www.es.ucsc.edu/~glatz/geodynamo.html Wow did I understand that correctly? The magnetic field produced by the thermal convections is trying to reverse the magnetic field in the Inner Core! And it is the balance between the two that determines the overall polarity.

Where did you get your "±4% change in the width" from? A 60 km displacement of a body that has a radius of 1220 km is around the 5% mark but that isn't the degree of change in the throat width, for the small object (IC) is blocking the OC which is a much more voluminous body. So my calculation of the ratio of the wide side to the narrow side was a maximum of 0.76% different. The thermal gradient will be as low as 1 degree per km across the OC ( if the IC is centralised and the OC depth is around 2260 km and the temperature difference between the IC and OC is seldom estimated at more than 2000 degrees difference, so one would have to say the gradient is quite minimal considering the distance. It won't take much stirring to disrupt the thermal flows which such minimal gradients. I will be looking at doing further calculations to see if my prediction is correct.

In my effort to understand the geomagnetic production from the thermal loops in the OC I became aware of a major difference between the idea I developed over the last year and the Geo-dynamo. With the idea I am working on the electrical current is the flowing OC and that passes near the crystalline metallic IC so I envisioned the whole of the IC being induced as a magnetic core, whereas the Geo-dynamo has the electromagnet being developed within the OC only.

This sentence intrigues me: http://astrogeo.oxfordjournals.org/content/49/5/5.5.2.full Would that imply the displacement of the Earth's IC is going to get larger as time marches on? No I think it implies the hydrodynamic bearing effect will tend to keep it more centralized. As it gets bigger the density is not always going to stay the same, in fact its average density will be declining. Will that mean buoyancy and gravity will equalise too? What will these changes make to the equations used in that analysis by Martin Wolf? Does it still make sense? Has anyone understood that paper? http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1302/1302.3960.pdf

We could estimate how much faster on average the fluid on the narrower side has to go compared to the wide side when the full 60 km displacement of the IC is in effect. The full volume of the OC has to go through the narrowed part every day (every 24 hour period) Volume of the OC 4/3 * Pi() * r(OC) ^ 3 - (volume of the IC = 4/3 * Pi() * r(IC) ^ 3). The difference in throat size = difference in cross sectional area +/- area of section of the IC full diameter times 60 km. radius of the earth's inner core 1220 kilometers radius of the earth's outer core is about 3480 kilometers with a thickness being that minus the 1220 km = 2260 kilometers. Throat size on the narrowed side 3.78995E+13 m^2 Throat size on the widened side 3.81923E+13 m^2 Ratio of port sizes = 1.0077 So the flow rates will be in the inverse proportions to get the same amount of liquid going through the narrow as the wide. The increased flow rate at an average shorter distance to the metallic Inner Core is equivalent to a higher current through the narrow side compared to the wide side. [complete, errors corrected and pasting error corrected]

Upon driving to work thinking about the effects I would be willing to modify this by saying "even if it was drawn to scale and operated on the daily rotation there becomes so much mixing in the equatorial regions of the OC that I believe experimentation would show that thermally induced convection flows causing the dynamo effect are unlikely there and only likely in the polar portions (NW -N- NE and the SW -S- SE sectors). I am convinced at the level of basic understanding of flowing liquids you can't really accept both at the same time in the middle region. I did do a kitchen bench experiment last year and the flow lines as per diagram 6 were certainly visible in the narrow portion but where the flows widden again there is a lot of turbulence where the fast flow enters the slow liquid. OK this, as Fig 6 does too, represents what happens at the equatorial region only. That turbulent mixing would be far more vigorous than any thermally induced convection flows.

Figure 6 in the paper by Martin Wolf shows an exaggerated displaced IC. Even if it was drawn to scale and operated on the daily rotation there becomes so much mixing in the OC that I believe experimentation would show that thermally induced convection flows causing the dynamo effect are unlikely. I am convinced at the level of basic understanding of flowing liquids you can't really accept both at the same time.

I still can't understand how you say I haven't presented physics to support my assertion. Do you think the loops of current are in the Earth's OC? And these are loops of thermal flows of molten metal caused by convection? Have you really checked these out? If you can say you agree with the alternative model, I'll try and understand it better. So you think you can get all the flows to have the same direction of looping so it becomes like a coil?

Why I don't accept heat driven convection as the most probable cause is that convection would have equal amounts of material going up as down (whatever opposite direction you decide. So if the up current tended to produce a south pole wouldn't the down part of the same convection loop negate that? Can you prove that it is "heat-driven convection"? By "anywhere" I mean if the measurements were taken anywhere in the Solar System (it didn't have to be measured from the Earth's surface. Time will tell whether this idea is correct. I don't have to prove the conjecture myself but I'm certainly keen to support any exploration into it. Did you accept the math of the paper? ("Earth Inner Core Periodic Motion due to Pressure Difference Induced by Tidal Acceleration" http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.3960) For if you did, noting the Earth is spinning on its axis every 24 hours but the Moon only orbits the Earth approximately once a month, the physics of the fluid flow around that displaced IC needs to be analysed. Have you considered that?

Yes the Earth has been around for a while but during that time the magnetic field has waxed and waned and flipped so I wouldn't want to say too much about its history. It may have needed restarting many times. In recent times (it has been 780,000 years since the magnetic field flipped), it has needed a current to keep the magnetic field going constantly for that long. It goes without saying that humans live on the surface of the Earth, but that slowdown in the Earth's rotation could potentially be measured from anywhere. That arxiv paper says nothing about magnetic fields but it did show it was possible for the IC to be displaced by up to 60 km and that displacement is toward the Moon. That means without a doubt there is this motion of the OC molten material that has not been described before. That is where my experimentation showed that with a displaced IC there is a side to the OC which is slightly narrowed and the other side which is widened yet the OC material has to rotate daily along with the Earth, and it was shown that the liquid was forced through the narrow side at a faster rate than the wide side. I would have like to prove that this could be a source of electrical current (if the OC material was electrically charged in some way). So the idea that this fluid motion plays a part in the production of the Earth's magnetic field was my theory, and it has been presented for discussion. It is my intention to perform some sort of experiment that demonstrates this effect but in truth that is beyond my present scope. I don't have the facilities or the resources, so the idea is open to be picked up by someone else.

It has been a while since I said it, but we did discuss how much energy it would take to start up the Earth's magnetic field, and how much would be required to keep it going (being equivalent to an electromagnet it was going to require a continuing current to maintain it.) We did mention the different rates of motion of the Inner Core (IC) and Outer Core (OC). I did mention the tidal displacement of the IC. That tidal displacement is like the tides on the surface, likewise there is this tide happening in the OC too. Cambridge proved the momentum lost by the Earth equates to the momentum gained by the Moon and it was without error, but it too did not split up the parts of the Earth and say which parts contributed how much. Now that is definitely beyond me, but the components have been shown, with that YT showing the Lenz's Law demonstrated to me how the magnetic effects will result in transfer of momentum (but this is happening internally within the Earth). Like the bike dynamo as long as it turned and there is a circuit, mechcanical energy will be turned into EM radiation. Just to reiterate the acceleration is gravitational (agreed). I am referring to the recession of the Moon (that is what has been measured (the 38 mm/year). There is no angular momentum being transferred magnetically between the Earth and the Moon - no, it is all done via tidal acceleration, but all components of the tidal displacement have to be considered. This paper "Earth Inner Core Periodic Motion due to Pressure Difference Induced by Tidal Acceleration" http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.3960 (and there is a link to the PDF from there). discusses how the displacement of the IC is achieved. (reference added later) So I still stand by my hypothesis that "the production of the Earth's magnetic field is contributing to the slowing of the rotation of the Earth and the acceleration of the Moon."

Is Infinity - 99.9% of infinity still infinite?

NZ has been metric for many years but babies are still posted in pounds and a person's height in feet and inches.

I'm not too sure what you are measuring here but as I understand it at the New Moon the Sun and the Moon are on the same side of the Earth so their combined gravitational forces would add up to making the Earth accelerate toward the Sun-Moon faster than when the Moon is full and the Earth is between the Sun and the Moon. So would we find that the Earth Moon distance is generally shorter at the Full Moon rather than at the New Moon?

What should I have said right from the beginning? Now I must always account for 100% of the momentum. "The Earth has been slowing its rate of rotation ever since the Moon was formed or captured. I have seen day lengths talked about as short as 5 hours originally, and now it is 24 hours and the days are still getting longer. More energy and momentum has been lost than ever can be accounted for going to tidally accelerate the Moon (that accounts for around 20% 3.3%) so in my opinion the Earth's magnetic field production could account for some of the remaining unaccounted for energy. Well mechanical energy is converted to electrical energy and the production of a magnetic field and heat as a result of electrical resistance. Hence the production of the Earth's magnetic field is contributing to the slowing of the rotation of the Earth and the acceleration of the Moon." That is still quite a powerful statement I believe.

That's right, will it be in the order of 90 to 100% conserved (swansont???) or the 20 - 30% (Robittybob) figure that was in my head from somewhere in the past? But remember I have already conceded that swanson is right http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/87920-magnetic-heating-and-slowing-of-the-earths-rotation-split-from-axial-tilt-and-length-of-day/page-3#entry856145, and the calculations done by "Cambridge Guide to the Solar System" are impossible to refute. Page 195 if the following link doesn't work. https://books.google.co.nz/books?id=S4xDhVCxAQIC&pg=PA195&lpg=PA195&dq=conservation+of+angular+momentum+earth+moon+system&source=bl&ots=LDL36y9zes&sig=H826KxhGn8iWLs92eZNo6zYnlBA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Oor5VJauFOLfmgX334G4Aw&ved=0CDQQ6AEwBDgK#v=onepage&q=conservation%20of%20angular%20momentum%20earth%20moon%20system&f=false

I'm going to have to find the required formulas. (Thanks to http://www.phy.ntnu.edu.tw/ntnujava/index.php?topic=1164.0for the basic formula.) The inertia of rotation for a sphere is I = 2 / 5 * m * R^2 The angular momentum of a sphere is L = I * omega = I * 2 * pi() / T . The angular momentum of a sphere should be one to start with for the loss of angular momentum of the Earth will be one of the results I will need to find. The other will be something like orbital angular momentum. The radius of the orbit increases but that means the orbital period will lengthen too. Maybe Kepler's Third law will be useful. http://www.phy.duke.edu/~lee/P53/sat.pdf Combining this with the formula for angular momentum: I'll look at the situation of a circular orbit at the start. I have feeling Excel is not going to be sensitive enough to pick up these small changes over the very long distances between the Moon to the Earth. [i'll save this and edit when I find more formulas I need.]