Robittybob1

I'm beginning to think along your lines now. If the Moon displaces the IC and if that promotes the motion of the molten OC and hence the magnetic field. So there must be a resistance to the a drag which will contribute to the tidal acceleration of the Moon. So even if the magnetic effect of the Earth depends on the Moon the momentum will be transferred to the Moon. So can I do the required calculation? Is the Earth -Moon an isolated system? So if you hung the pendulum and Magnet up so it was contained in an another pendulum even though the first pendulum was dampened in its swing by the magnetic field I presume the total momentum is still present in the second suspending pendulum system.

Where does the momentum of the swinging pendulum end up? Momentum being a vector quantity makes it different to a scalar quantity of energy. e.g. Is it correct to say this? 2 cars of equal weight going 200 mph in opposite directions have a total momentum of zero, even before they lose their kinetic energy in a head on collision?

In the process of trying to discover how to do the above calculation and to attempt to explain why I think there won't be a 100% transfer of momentum from the Earth to the Moon, this is very nicely demonstrated in this short video on Lenz's Law. "Brass Pendulum and Lenz's Law" When the brass pendulum is swung across the magnetic field the motion (the momentum is reduced rapidly.) So if we say "the momentum is conserved" it had to be in some other form other than motion of the main components, and that is where I'm struggling to find a clear answer. It is a bit like friction in a rolling car experiment, momentum will be lost (conserved) in the act of overcoming friction but it won't be noticed in the final momentum of the situation. Final situation the car will be stationary and all momentum will have been transferred to the environment in the form heated molecules. Do those heated molecules retain the original momentum? Maybe they do. But once that heat is radiated out into space it seems difficult to say it is conserved. With the magnet you can sense there will be induced currents in the brass block and its associated resistance and heat production. Does that heat conserve the original momentum? So if the motion of the Earth is what sets up the electromagnetic field and that field produces electrical currents and secondary heat, will momentum be lost to the spinning Earth, just as the brass weight did?

Well I have got some recent data to work from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon#Tidal_evolution "In keeping with the conservation of angular momentum ...." I wonder what percentage that is? I'll try and work it out soon as I can see how to do it.

Well that has to be definitely cleared up. It sounds like you think 100% of the Earth's angular momentum reduction has been transferred to the Moon. Well I'll be very surprised if it has.

When the angular momentum has obviously been lowered, because the Earth's rotation is slower, and they know the Moon's tidal acceleration has only taken a little of that, how do you think angular momentum is conserved? I'm struggling with that idea.

To understand that the whole mechanism needs to be understood better. (Or do I need to start a new thread every time we will need to look at different aspects of the Earth's Magnetic Field?) They are absolutely related in my way of thinking. The last two documentaries I have listened to say the field is powered by the motion of the molten metallic Outer Core, so does that use of motion slow the Earth? If we could understand what causes the reversals maybe better understanding of what connection to the Earth's spin there was? For the direction of spin doesn't change yet the field changes, so will this falsify my speculation? Weren't you previously suggesting that I should explore this aspect?

There were two names of respected scientists that came up in a video I had watched on the Earth's Magnetic field and they were Dr. Mario Acuna (and he has a page on Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mario_Acu%C3%B1a (deceased) and this article in the NY Times refers to his achievements as well. "Magnetism on Mars Suggests a Geology Once Like Earth's" http://www.nytimes.com/1999/04/30/us/magnetism-on-mars-suggests-a-geology-once-like-earth-s.html The other name was Gary Glatzmaier, many references to him, but one of note he is mentioned in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal. This is one aspect of science that has always moved me immensely is the dedication that some put into their work to advance scientific knowledge. That was the main reason for plugging his talk above for I feel he deserves some honour for the work he has done. That said, back to the subject of seeing if the reversals were "global".

The name Gary Glatzmaier seems worth researching for he has simulated magnetic reversals. "Simulations of magnetic fields - Gary Glatzmaier (SETI Talks)" (audio is of poor quality) but when I get a spare hour I'll look at the talk.

"Helping the planet" will be from someone's point of view. Originally there were anaerobes but plants came along that produced oxygen with improves the planet for those creatures that can survive in Oxygen rich atmosphere but oxygen was detrimental to the anaerobes. Because of the higher concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere a plant could evolve with a less energy costly CO2 absorption system, i.e. one that would be at a disadvantage when CO2 is the limiting factor. So now you would have a plant that needs the higher concentration of CO2, as we have now, so you could imagine it out producing other plant forms. It might also be adapted to survive underground, for the increased vegetation would produce an increased fire risk. It might use its increased combustibility to burn other competitor plants and the burning of the other plants would increase the CO2 levels even further, to its advantage. So was it helping the planet?

I'll try and find it again but it was like the Earth having a split magnetic field with 2 North Magnetic Poles and two South Magnetic Poles.

It would be an interesting study for someone. By quadrupole do you mean like two electromagnets side by side (nearly parallel)? ( I saw an image like that yesterday in an article but can't locate it again in a hurry.)

Like you are referring to the Earth free falling around the Sun but the Earth still produces a force on us standing on the Earth. True.

What I am tending toward, in my recent thinking at least (last couple of days), that there is was no such thing as a global magnetic reversal but it might be accounted for by a quadrupole. My preferred method of the production of the magnetic field would tend to produce two faster streams of molten metal around the displaced IC so a quadrupole is likely but having a way of reversing the poles completely has been the difficult bit. This quadrupole concept could give localized regions of reversed polarity without having to completely reverse the polarity of the electromagnets. That is the idea I'm wanting to explore. Is there any evidence that it was a truly global polarity change? I opened the links (you gave) and because their theme was about arguments related to a young Earth, something which never enters my head, I wasn't too sure why you linked those papers and I don't have time to read pointless arguments for and against a young Earth. I'm definitely into the Earth being in the 4.6 billion years old range. Is there any evidence that it was a global polarity change? (rather than the way the quadrupoles of varying strengths interacted together.)

Not that easy to get a good reference but this one speaks on the subject: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/312/5775/900.full "Fall in Earth's Magnetic Field Is Erratic" there that's better.

It is cutting it fine. He couldn't get people to rebel against the law (their laws) until he became the new covenant. From then the old laws were passed away with. I don't think many are game enough to believe this but it was what I found there. It made the message more democratic, but we were asked to really follow our conscience (if that is our heart and mind?). It is one thing to get a new insight and so I am trying out this new freedom. It is scary, for you wonder if there is anything written on your heart and mind. It isn't something you can check ahead of time. Does it work? Can it be made to work? Maybe you already do this any way. Hebrews 10:16 Hebrews 10:24 Maybe they made a mistake leaving Hebrews in the Bible but it is there. I'm listening to this documentary that says some people have no conscience. So what do they do?

You are the one quoting the Bible so you will find what I say is in there. I didn't find what was quoted as embarrassing but your interpretation that: They are your words not his.

It is what is written in your head and heart that is important. Now I found those ideas mysterious, but it was the message I got from reading the NT. So there was no intention to write anything down on paper. For how can you tell what is written on your mind or heart? That was the introspection required. Self awareness is essential. Not many Christians see it the way I do.

Why do you think Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi "clearly displays" insanity? Did your link prove that connection?

I read that as they might be the extremes of sanity, but is there sane ground in between?

He didn't say that really.

I take that you are saying those things from a non-Christian viewpoint. So what you say ends up embarrassing a Jesus following person. What you are also saying is that Jesus never made an iota of a difference, in fact you say he only reinforced the old rules. I have proved that view scripturally wrong. You take the bits out to support your view but forget to read that Jesus in the end fulfilled the law and after him there came a new set of laws and the old laws were finished. He couldn't change the law while he was alive but achieved that upon his death, as they say he became the sacrifice. All the old stuff was done away with for Christians. Now the law we follow is the one written on our hearts and our minds.

Thanks I'll check them out later.

I thought you might have commented on that but it appears to be what is happening at the moment.

Wikipedia on Earth's Magnetic Field: I live and learn. So we can get sideways magnetic fields. I must see if I can read that cross reference "35", for I'd like to know if that is pointing to one place on the equator or in a moving spot. I trying to see an estimate on the power that would be needed to produce the Earth's magnetic field. There was one calculation in StackExchange: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/139750/how-much-power-would-be-needed-to-make-a-substitute-for-natural-earth-magnetic-f How accurate would that be? What is certain is that the magnetic field is fading. http://www.icr.org/article/182/ So there are some figures to start with.