Robittybob1

Where did you read that?

I wonder what level David111 is at for that seems a pretty complex question.

I'm surprised at the level of education in your country. What age group are you may I ask?

Moving as in rotating? They need to move within the system itself. Like a bike generator doesn't work simply by being attached to a moving bike. I know that was a silly example but I'm left wondering what you mean by they are moving. As I could see convection will be in all directions too and I would doubt if you could keep up a steady current for millions of years at a time. I respect the idea of swirling thermals and the coriolis effect but the motion in the Outer Core due to a displaced Inner Core is so demonstrable I went with that idea first, and now I'm looking for a way of changing the polarity of the Inner Core molten metal from being slightly negative to slightly positive, something like that, to change the Earth's magnetic field polarity. It is very difficult to fathom out. "If the core's rotation slowed, wouldn't the outer layers speed up to conserve angular momentum?" There was the strange situation where the Inner Core (IC) is moving faster than the Mantle, and the Outer Core (OC) is moving slower than both the IC and the Mantle. So to keep this situation going obviously there is very little friction in the molten Outer Core and the OC is being held back by the displaced IC. The physics of that motion seemed to be correct and I was able to see these motion differences in a simple experiment.

Are you running that simulation on a bought in program or one you wrote yourself? I am hoping the idea I am looking at has a certain forgiveness in it, for the Sun cycles will not be defined as accurately as orbits. It would be like a clock, the hands of which will pass each other 11 times in a 12 hour period regardless whether the time is correct or it is running slow or fast. Well so I think at this stage but I am a long way from completing it as yet.

Was it Ohm's law? No that was V=I*R. From Wikipedia on electrical resistance: It is going to take work to move those electrical charges (and how do you make the fluids electrically charged in the first place?) With molten metal you are going to have equal numbers of electrons and protons so when you move it, is that a current? To me that seems to be a two way current and the magnetic effects were going to cancel. You are also going to have to have a way of making them move faster than their metal surroundings. What is going to make those charges move?

You get skinned knees every time for sure. Bicycle generators worked off permanent magnets but unlike the Earth, the Earth is not a permanent magnet, it is an electromagnet, and that is an output on its own.

That could happen as every cycle of the simulation you will be adding up the errors in your calculations. Sounds like with fine tuning you could get rid of that if you wanted too, or might be real. Do planetary orbits have a way of dampening down their eccentricities?

As kids we had these things called "dynamos" to power the lights on your bicycle. It rubbed on the tire and if the light was working you had to pedal real hard to make it turn fast enough to produce enough light. So when I read about the dynamo in the center of the Earth I can't but help thinking it is going to need something to keep it rotating, and the other part stationary (the housing of the dynamo as they wouldn't work if they were loosely mounted). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MFWlwtwEN8 There are a couple of badly mounted dynamos in this clip. It should not be contacting the steel rim for a starter.

At this stage I was just exploring how to set up the macros that will look at these two imaginary planets (they could nearly represent Mars and Jupiter) and once I get confidence with the math I will introduce all the real planets with their actual masses and radii. I definitely needed a practice run first. It will reveal if stability of the orbitals will be that crucial. I'm just going to be surprised if there is a rhythmic pattern that comes out with an 22 year period.

Are we debating how much "some of the remainder" is? I re-read my original post on the topic and to me I make it clear it is the production of the electrical current that causes both the magnetic field and some heating (current going through a resistance). That is fairly standard physics isn't it. Electrical currents will produce heat. Last year I tried to find out how much current would be required to produce a magnetic field the size of the Earth's and there are estimates but I'm not strong on understanding the figures that have been estimated. Edit: I have no actual conception of what proportion of that heating is due to the electrical current. But if it was really important I could try and look into it again.

I agree, not all the heating is produced by the Earth's electromagnetic field production; I have never ever attempted to say it was, so we agree on that point (I think, but you can confirm that). So do we agree a proportion of the Earth's internal heating is the result of electrical resistance? (for it is current going through a resistor that produces heat), and what causes the current to flow is debatable. Whether it is the coriolis effect or the displacement of the Earth's inner core, nevertheless both methods are going to act as a brake on the Earth's rotation. The only claim was that I haven't read about a "sideways magnetic field" during times of magnetic pole reversal. From memory it is more a fading out and then resuming in the opposite polarity, yet I have not been really convinced about how that happens.

Just so I can get to see what calculations could be like let the Sun have a certain mass Ms and there be two planets with the largest being 300 times as large as a smaller one. The larger one is orbiting the Sun at 3 times the radius of the smaller one. What is the frequency of the orbital phases they go through just from gravitational force. Ms = 2.0E+30 kg M1 = 300 times M2 M2 = 6.0E+24 Radius M1 = R1 = 8E+11 m Radius M2 = R2 = 3/8E+11m Both have circular orbits and they follow the orbital period formula. Period = T = 2 Pi()*SQRT(R^3/(G*Ms)) Looks like I was wrong previously about the speed being inversely proportional to radius. (I should have said inversely proportional to square root of the radius.) Let's set up the example and get the formulas ingrained. The period for the planet further out is 5.2 times longer duration. T is proportional to the sqrt. of the radius cubed. If they start off aligned on the same side of the Sun they are 180 degrees apart after 1.470 years (just over half the orbital period for the smaller planet. I can see if I add in more planets there won't be many times where all planets align, so I'm going to have to develop a way of adding up influence and not just look for times of alignment. OK a compromise might be on the cards - I'll look at the times when Jupiter and Saturn* align and add on the influence of the other planets at that time. (* I'll choose the two planets that have the greatest gravitational influence on the Sun.)

Well if that is the case "Go for it!" see whether you can get some real benefit from being on a science forum. I have, but it has taken years of dedication. My spelling has improved and my ability to argue without getting angry or feel put down when someone has tried to demoralise me. Good luck to you.

That was a well studied article. But does it really make a difference if we are in a long term binary orbit with another star?

I don't think that is quite right either.

Did you understand what I was saying? There are many processes that result in heating of the Earth and result in the slowing the rotation of the Earth. Someone else did the calculation of the proportion of how much of the Earth's momentum and energy has gone into tidally accelerating the Moon, the figures quoted in Wikipedia are 1/30 th. (that is what we call "the maths" in NZ. Was that not enough? So to me 1/30th is a factor of ten out (one order of magnitude), from my poorish recollection of 20%. OK I realise 1/3 and 1/30th is more exact but I wasn't talking about being exactly correct but "order of magnitude". Wikipedia talks about the energy lost. Momentum loss is another figure as well. (I should stop say "energy and momentum is lost" for the amounts are different.) So if there is a "dynamo effect" in the Outer Core that process will take energy and the result is heat plus the magnetic field. So heating does account for the difference, but what is causing that heating? Well in all my reading about the topic I have never read about "sideways magnetic alignments" (allowing for a degree of wandering of course), but my understanding was that it was a more total reversal at various stages in history on a fairly irregular pattern as opposed to the Sun which is on the 22 year cycle. (Now if my ideas on this are wrong I will stand correction. OK the reversal takes time so what happens during a pole shift is not that clear. Is there a short period of sideways magnetic alignment? Do you know?) I think there is plenty of evidence that an electromagnet will produce heating. What other parts did you need proof of?

Show us the link please?

You had to explain why you chose "Dominant" so part a has not been answered fully yet.

So do you have evidence of the situations you describe here? Have you experienced what you describe here?

Science forums could help you or they too could break you even worse. I have seen people come and go and if you thought you could use the forum to learn science, that is hard too for the topics are so haphazard. I sense from your post you are very clever and you just need confidence. Do you think that can be gained from being on a forum? Gosh that is a hard question.

G and the mass of the Sun doesn't change so they could be dropped out of the calculations. Just the m/r^2 changes between the planets and the amount of angle change WRT Jupiter - Sun baseline. The orbital velocity formula Vo = SQRT(GM/r) so the speed that the planets orbit the Sun is not dependent on their own mass just always inversely proportional to their distance, and the circumference is proportional to the radius as well, so the angle change must be inversely proportional to their radii as well.

This article came up on the local MSN news "This is what it's like to be dead, according to a guy who died for a bit" http://www.msn.com/en-nz/health/mindandbody/this-is-what-its-like-to-be-dead-according-to-a-guy-who-died-for-a-bit/ar-BBhWREd?ocid=UP97DHP

I thought pressure was force per unit area.

Don't you have to work in Kelvin?