Robittybob1

OK you were using it in the mythological sense whereas since the thread is about genetics I thought you should know the genetic meaning of Chimera. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_%28genetics%29

You need to check your definition of "Chimera". The way you used it in that sentence was incorrect.

In a high speed race "The tires will lose traction if the sidewall starts contacting the ground" becomes the essential issue. The tire is a circle and has a certain circumference. If the sidewalls contact the ground they are on a lesser radius and hence shorter circumference, so both the tread and the sidewall can't be gripping at the same time.

Firstly you are not going as fast. So you don't need to lean over as much. On a motorbike the rider moves his weight so to lower the center of mass without having to lean the bike over too much. The tires will lose traction if the sidewall starts contacting the ground.

In previous work that we had done on the Earth's magnetic field (on another forum) it was proposed that it was the Moon's tidal displacement of the Earth's Inner Core within the molten Earth's Outer Core that enabled the production of differential flows to occur in the outer core which could constitute an electrical current passing near the conductive Inner Core and hence a magnetic field could arise. I will admit no method of reversing this current was proposed so the hypothesis failed in that regard. If the model was valid and what you proposed ever did happen, provided the alignment of the Moon to the Earth's Inner Core did not change, the Earth's magnetic field with respect to the Sun would be much the same as it currently is. That maybe so but you did not make it clear whose "feelings" you were referring to originally, so I just wanted to make it clear to everyone they did not represent my view. That opinion is contrary to my previous posting.

I never said "the Sun's magnetic field drags on Earth's magnetic field and changes Earth's rate of rotation", so where did you get that idea from? And I did answer Imatfaal with the maths.

Principally because what you say is factual is mere reasoned opinion of someone else.

The science speaks for itself. The magnetic pole "flips" and it wanders but there aren't lengths of time where the magnetic pole was "sideways" so I would further opinion that it is always related to the spinning Earth (aligned) and caused by the Earth's spin. I read figures of that magnitude in Wikipedia on tidal acceleration of the Moon within the last few days. ( I now see I was out by a factor of ten.)

I've studied this topic so I do have opinions on the topic thanks very much. Not only that it is an opinion the physics logic is hard to refute. Argue the physics please.

No wonder the mathematician got constipated. He underestimated the length of time it would take to precisely locate his slide ruler.

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 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%) so in my opinion the Earth's magnetic field could account for some of the remainder. The magnetic field is a type of electromagnet from the production of a current, currents are known to have a resistance and hence heating, heating is a form of energy loss. Well mechanical energy is converted to electrical energy and heat hence slowing the rotation of the Earth.

I'm not dismissing the effect of the planets as yet but the thought of all the work to disprove it is rather frightening. It might just have to be left in the too hard basket at the moment. I have been playing around with the buttons on the Solar System Live page and if you set the "Orbits" to "equal" you get the Sun dead center, but otherwise it might be a SSB view where the Sun is often off-center. From the orbital periods and their distances we could get a rough idea of any patterns that might develop. From the gravitational force equation = GmM/r^2 and plotting how the forces would add to the G force of Jupiter might work. The previous idea of making it appear sinusoidal seems dumb looking at it now. I haven't graphed things going around in a circular fashion before so it is new territory. So I would have to add the force vectors of the other 8 planets to that of Jupiter as Jupiter orbits the Sun. The force vectors could be kept constant for each planet so the main change moment by moment will be the direction of each planet's force vector. If they are on opposite sides of the Sun there will be a reduction, if the planet is 90 degrees to jupiter there will be no additional strength but if they both align and are on the same side the vectors will fully add.

What is the net result if he gets the calculation wrong?

Very, very interesting, and very strange, for the Sun is displaced to the same side of the "center" as is Jupiter. What is the center of the system based on, do you know? Thanks for your help on this topic.

OK I didn't know that, but I'm not surprised. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo%27s_Leaning_Tower_of_Pisa_experiment So it appears Galileo at least thought about free fall.

Are you still of the view that the planets have nothing to do with the generation of the field? How can I tell what is the alignment of the planets today? I was thinking I could express the position of each planet as a sine wave and then multiply that by the gravitational and tidal effect and sum them up somehow. But I would need to know their starting positions.

So were they principally the same, even though you ignore the insignificant correction? If you get to the point of being able to cruise close to a black hole I would tend to think you would have had to understood relativity, and the rocketeer would be wise no longer ignoring it.

Where does one start and the other finish? They blend together don't they? Relativistic effects are more noticeable at high speeds but really they are ever-present (but insignificant).

I think the Sun's magnetic field is going to be a lot more complex. I'm mostly interested in the switching factor. (If there is such a thing.) I'm really just into trying to understand what Janus was talking about at this stage. The tidal effects of the planets on the Sun.

Didn't Einstein say free fall is the same as inertial motion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle so falling into a black hole, until you measure the tidal effects, I always understood that this was not acceleration. OK it took a lot of convincing but we only notice the full acceleration due to gravity when we are stationary.

How do you know?

Brushing up on electromagnetism, it was the relative motion of the magnet to the coil that created the current and it didn't matter if it was the coil that moved or the magnet that moved. Sometimes you are correct. I might admit if you were stuck in a spacecraft and had forgotten which way was up and things appeared to be moving around you for some strange reason you might not realise it was you who was falling into the black hole.

It has happened to me. I'm sitting in a train waiting to move off, and then I notice the station moving, "silly me its the train moving instead", but for that moment in time your brain is fooled.

Is the switch for this related to gravity? Alignment of the planets only makes sense if you are thinking in terms of gravity. Is the pull getting stronger or weaker? Is that equivalent through some mechanism to change of current? Pulled from another direction is what operates a switch in everyday life, so is direction of motion part of the solution. How does any physical thing know in what direction it is going? But it does. The right hand rule to electromagnetism is solid it doesn't flip this way that way. For to change a magnetic field to my simple way of thinking means the current through the conductor was reversed.

To me that seems like a silly way of viewing the world.