Plate tectonic mechanism ?

[Ophiolite]

I am going to take your comment with a grain of salt because you clearly need to do more research on electromagnetic fields and the emission of energy from stars(Oh yes, the Sun is a star).

 

I would be interested to see you deal with Billiard's justifiable puzzlement at your apparent application of the entire energy output of the sun to interaction with the Earth's magnetic field. This seems indefensible and therefore the conclusions you derive form it seem unwarranted. I am open minded enough to await your explanation (or a retraction).

[Unity+]

 

1) Really? If I'd known the Sun was a star then that would have changed EVERYTHING!

 

* on a more serious note -- you might want to check out this pretty cool thing called the inverse square law.

 

2) Sure ** digging around ** it's here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL047450/abstract

 

 

ps - thanks for the down votes

1) I was being sarcastic, especially with the unnecessary attitude that you were presenting.

 

2)Thank you.

 

Your welcome. Down votes help determine the reliable posts from the unreliable ones.

I would be interested to see you deal with Billiard's justifiable puzzlement at your apparent application of the entire energy output of the sun to interaction with the Earth's magnetic field. This seems indefensible and therefore the conclusions you derive form it seem unwarranted. I am open minded enough to await your explanation (or a retraction).

Do you want me to explain the energy density of the magnetic field of the Sun based on the output(which is just a portion of the energy from the Sun) of energy from it?

 

EDIT: Here is something to put into perspective of what I would be including in my explanation if this is the question you are asking: http://www.gravitynotes.org/GravitationalEnergyDensity.htm

 

EDIT2: Oh and yes I have heard of the inverse-square law. I accounted it in the calculations when dealing with the electromagnetic field involving the distance of the Sun and Earth.

 

EDIT3: Adding on to this, the calculation involves the distance that the Earth's magnetic field goes compared to the Sun's magnetic field.

 

Here is more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetosphere(Not an orthodox source, but for simplicity)

 

 

Earth's magnetosphere[edit]

Over the Earth's equator, the magnetic field lines become almost horizontal, then return to connect back again at high latitudes. However, at high altitudes, the magnetic field is significantly distorted by the solar wind and its solar magnetic field. On the dayside of the Earth, the magnetic field is significantly compressed by the solar wind to a distance of approximately 65,000 kilometers (40,000 mi). The Earth's bow shock is about 17 kilometers (11 mi) thick^[11] and located about 90,000 kilometers (56,000 mi) from the Earth.^[12] The magnetopause exists at a distance of several hundred kilometers off the surface of the earth. The Earth's magnetopause has been compared to a sieve, as it allows particles from the solar wind to enter. Kelvin–Helmholtz instabilities occur when large swirls of plasma travel along the edge of the magnetosphere at a different velocity from the magnetosphere, causing the plasma to slip past. This results inmagnetic reconnection, and as the magnetic field lines break and reconnect, solar wind particles are able to enter the magnetosphere.^[13] On the nightside of the earth, the magnetic field extends in the magnetotail, which is over 6,300,000 kilometers (3,900,000 mi) in length.^[3] The Earth's magnetotail is the primary source of the polar aurora.^[10] Also, NASA scientists have suggested or "speculated" that the Earth's magnetotail can cause "dust storms" on the moon by creating a potential difference between the day side and the night side.^[14]

Also, there is something to be noted about the heat of the inner core of the Earth, which suggests something else as well:

 

 

 

The inner core of the Earth, its innermost part, is a primarily solid ball with a radius of about 1,220 km (760 mi), according to seismological studies.^[1][2] (This is about 70% of the length of the Moon's radius.) It is believed to consist primarily of an iron–nickel alloy, and to be about the same temperature as the surface of the Sun: approximately 5700 K (5430 °C).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_core

 

My calculations merely were for a completely iron inner core. The following will make things clearer:

 

 

 

In early stages of Earth's formation about four and a half billion (4.5×10⁹) years ago, melting would have caused denser substances to sink toward the center in a process calledplanetary differentiation (see also the iron catastrophe), while less-dense materials would have migrated to the crust. The core is thus believed to largely be composed of iron (80%), along with nickel and one or more light elements, whereas other dense elements, such as lead and uranium, either are too rare to be significant or tend to bind to lighter elements and thus remain in the crust (see felsic materials). Some have argued that the inner core may be in the form of a single iron crystal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_of_the_Earth

 

Therefore, there are many variables to account for that, in fact, would mean a need for less energy than calculated before.

Edited November 27, 2013 by Unity+

[Ophiolite]

Do you want me to explain the energy density of the magnetic field of the Sun based on the output(which is just a portion of the energy from the Sun) of energy from it?

No, I want you to explain this:

 

So, from this source(and many other sources) the Sun produces Joules(or Watts per second). Now, from this piece of information, the same amount of energy(assuming that all the energy is in the electromagnetic field of the Sun) would be transferred through the electromagnetic field of the Earth(since we assume that the Earth's and Sun's electromagnetic fields interact with each other), which then is transferred to(if this is correct) the inner core of the Earth. Since the mass of the inner core, made out of both iron, nickle, and sulfur(on small scales), is grams, at least based on the source below. Please correct me on this if this is incorrect:

 

You appear to be applying the entire power output of the sun to the core of the Earth. Either justify why you are doing this, or explain to me how I have misunderstood what you have written.

[billiards]

No, I want you to explain this:

 

So, from this source(and many other sources) the Sun produces Joules(or Watts per second). Now, from this piece of information, the same amount of energy(assuming that all the energy is in the electromagnetic field of the Sun) would be transferred through the electromagnetic field of the Earth(since we assume that the Earth's and Sun's electromagnetic fields interact with each other), which then is transferred to(if this is correct) the inner core of the Earth. Since the mass of the inner core, made out of both iron, nickle, and sulfur(on small scales), is grams, at least based on the source below. Please correct me on this if this is incorrect:

 

You appear to be applying the entire power output of the sun to the core of the Earth. Either justify why you are doing this, or explain to me how I have misunderstood what you have written.

 

Also he thinks a joule is a watt per second.

[Unity+]

 

Also he thinks a joule is a watt per second.

 

 

The unit, defined as one joule persecond, measures the rate of energy conversion or transfer.

I may have unintentionally reversed them when I was explaining this, but please don't post if you don't know what you are talking about.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt

No, I want you to explain this:

 

So, from this source(and many other sources) the Sun produces Joules(or Watts per second). Now, from this piece of information, the same amount of energy(assuming that all the energy is in the electromagnetic field of the Sun) would be transferred through the electromagnetic field of the Earth(since we assume that the Earth's and Sun's electromagnetic fields interact with each other), which then is transferred to(if this is correct) the inner core of the Earth. Since the mass of the inner core, made out of both iron, nickle, and sulfur(on small scales), is grams, at least based on the source below. Please correct me on this if this is incorrect:

 

You appear to be applying the entire power output of the sun to the core of the Earth. Either justify why you are doing this, or explain to me how I have misunderstood what you have written.

It is because the magnetic field of the Sun is produced through the following ways:

 

 

 

1. The Sun's high temperatures cause the positively charged ions and negatively charged electrons that make up its plasma to move around a lot. The moving plasma creates many complicated magnetic fields that twist and turn.
2. The extremely hot plasma that blows off the Sun as the solar wind also causes a magnetic field.
3. The plasma in the Sun also rotates around the Sun's axis. The plasma near the poles rotates slower than the plasma at the equator causing twisting and stretching of magnetic fields, too.

http://ibex.swri.edu/students/How_does_the_Sun.shtml

 

These interactions are caused by the particles within the Sun. Because, on average, a majority of the particles in the Sun are producing this magnetic field this means that the output, which is caused by all these interactions, would be in the form of the magnetic field, which means that the magnetic field would contain the energy that is being outputted by the Sun a majority of the time. If I were to be using the whole energy of the Sun, the amount in the Sun and the amount emitted from the sun, then I could see why you would be questioning this. However, this is not the case. Does that answer the question?

 

EDIT: Sorry if information is slow coming in. There is too much news about the "Sun's poles getting flipped", which makes other articles hard to find.

Edited November 27, 2013 by Unity+

[Ophiolite]

No, I'm sorry, it does not answer the question. I am possibly being extremely dense. Let me try to explain again my confusion.

 

Let me try it this way: what proportion of the sun's total energy ouput is contained within its magnetic field?

What proportion of that field effects the magnetic field of the Earth?

 

You still appear to have taken the total energy output of the sun and then calculated the effect this would have on the core of the Earth. If this is not what you are doing please, in addition to answering the two questions above, lay out the calculation in detail so I can see what numbers you are using and where they are from.

 

I may have unintentionally reversed them when I was explaining this, but please don't post if you don't know what you are talking about.

 

May I recommend avoiding statements like this in future. They do not help move the discussion along in a producitve manner.

[Unity+]

No, I'm sorry, it does not answer the question. I am possibly being extremely dense. Let me try to explain again my confusion.

 

Let me try it this way: what proportion of the sun's total energy ouput is contained within its magnetic field?

What proportion of that field effects the magnetic field of the Earth?

 

You still appear to have taken the total energy output of the sun and then calculated the effect this would have on the core of the Earth. If this is not what you are doing please, in addition to answering the two questions above, lay out the calculation in detail so I can see what numbers you are using and where they are from.

 

May I recommend avoiding statements like this in future. They do not help move the discussion along in a producitve manner.

I may have to redo the calculations because I think I made an error when calculating for the range of the magnetic field of the Sun. I'll edit this post(or post another post) when I finish redoing the calculations.

[Ophiolite]

I look forward to seeing the revised calculation, but surely you can answer the two first questions qualitatively?

 

What proportion of the sun's total energy ouput is contained within its magnetic field?

What proportion of that field effects the magnetic field of the Earth?

 

I am especially interested in your response to the second question. You still appear to be saying that the energy of the entire magnetic field of the sun impacts on the magnetic field of the Earth. Please address this in your next post.

[Unity+]

I look forward to seeing the revised calculation, but surely you can answer the two first questions qualitatively?

 

What proportion of the sun's total energy ouput is contained within its magnetic field?

What proportion of that field effects the magnetic field of the Earth?

 

I am especially interested in your response to the second question. You still appear to be saying that the energy of the entire magnetic field of the sun impacts on the magnetic field of the Earth. Please address this in your next post.

Allow me to do more searching for articles for the proportions of the magnetic field to energy emission. That will allow me to provide better answers.

[Ophiolite]

Look, the way you have written the passage I quoted earlier give the impression that the answers to my two questions would be as below:

 

What proportion of the sun's total energy ouput is contained within its magnetic field? A very large proportion of it.

What proportion of that field effects the magnetic field of the Earth? All of it.

 

I can see no good reason not to either confirm those would be your answers, or to give a preferred alternative. Frankly, your reluctance to responde gives the impression that you know you are mistaken and are trying to construct some 'excuse'. I doubt this is the case, but if you continue to avoid a response my suspicions will grow.

[Unity+]

Look, the way you have written the passage I quoted earlier give the impression that the answers to my two questions would be as below:

 

What proportion of the sun's total energy ouput is contained within its magnetic field? A very large proportion of it.

What proportion of that field effects the magnetic field of the Earth? All of it.

 

I can see no good reason not to either confirm those would be your answers, or to give a preferred alternative. Frankly, your reluctance to responde gives the impression that you know you are mistaken and are trying to construct some 'excuse'. I doubt this is the case, but if you continue to avoid a response my suspicions will grow.

If you read the post I just posted, I said I would do more research to answer the questions you asked. I want to confirm with more confidence that my answers to the question were correct.

[Ophiolite]

I read your post. My remarks stand. I now strongly suspect that I have understood what you wrote and that what you wrote was purest nonsense. Here is my position:

 

A proportion of the energy output of the sun is invested in its magnetic field, a portion in the solar wind, a portion in the generation of neutrinos and the greater part in electromagnetic radiation.

 

Of the portion creating the solar magentic field and the solar wind only a tiny proportion impacts upon the Earth's magnetic field and only a minor proportion of this will influence the core. Your statements made in earlier posts appear to deny this and seem to claim that the entire, or at least the greater part of the solar output, or certainly of its magnetic field, directly effects the core of the Earth.

 

All I have been asking for you to do for the last several posts is to state that you are not claiming this. If that is/was your claim it pretty wells invalidates any reason we would have to take any of your arguments in this thread seriously. Why are your reluctant to make that statement?

[Unity+]

I read your post. My remarks stand. I now strongly suspect that I have understood what you wrote and that what you wrote was purest nonsense. Here is my position:

 

A proportion of the energy output of the sun is invested in its magnetic field, a portion in the solar wind, a portion in the generation of neutrinos and the greater part in electromagnetic radiation.

 

Of the portion creating the solar magentic field and the solar wind only a tiny proportion impacts upon the Earth's magnetic field and only a minor proportion of this will influence the core. Your statements made in earlier posts appear to deny this and seem to claim that the entire, or at least the greater part of the solar output, or certainly of its magnetic field, directly effects the core of the Earth.

 

All I have been asking for you to do for the last several posts is to state that you are not claiming this. If that is/was your claim it pretty wells invalidates any reason we would have to take any of your arguments in this thread seriously. Why are your reluctant to make that statement?

Yes, everything I said was pure nonsense. It is best just to ignore every post I made in this thread. I apologize for posting in this thread.

Edited November 28, 2013 by Unity+

[Ophiolite]

I am trying to get a proper response from you. Do you consider your previous post to be a proper response?

 

Please take a look at the forum rules. You made an assertion, You are required to back it up with evidence. I do understand that you would like some time to do some further study in order to provide a more detailed response. I welcome that, but if you felt confident enough to make the assertion, accompanied by numbers, I do not believe anything I have asked for is unreasonable.

 

I would have accepted a response such as "Hmm, I may have made an unwarranted assumption here. Let me explore this a little further and get back to you." Indeed, I would have welcomed such a response. What continues to puzzle me is your unwillingness to offer any comment at all apart from this latest sarcastic retort. This is a discussion forum. Leaving in the middle of a discussion is counterproductive and rude. I look forward to you providing a sensible and informative reply so that we can get back to discussing the science.

[Unity+]

I am trying to get a proper response from you. Do you consider your previous post to be a proper response?

 

Please take a look at the forum rules. You made an assertion, You are required to back it up with evidence. I do understand that you would like some time to do some further study in order to provide a more detailed response. I welcome that, but if you felt confident enough to make the assertion, accompanied by numbers, I do not believe anything I have asked for is unreasonable.

 

I would have accepted a response such as "Hmm, I may have made an unwarranted assumption here. Let me explore this a little further and get back to you." Indeed, I would have welcomed such a response. What continues to puzzle me is your unwillingness to offer any comment at all apart from this latest sarcastic retort. This is a discussion forum. Leaving in the middle of a discussion is counterproductive and rude. I look forward to you providing a sensible and informative reply so that we can get back to discussing the science.

It wasn't a sarcastic remark. I am openly stating that what I previously stated was nonsense and I am admitting that for later, if I do, I would provide evidence for the response before.

 

If you want me to put it in other words, I have accepted defeat in this scientific discussion.

Edited November 28, 2013 by Unity+

[Ophiolite]

Thank you. My apologies for misinterpreting your previous post. Please do not see this as a defeat. I should prefer to see it as a small victory for both of us and for science, since we have arrived at an improved understanding. It can be difficult to admit error and I congratulate you on your readiness to do so.

[arc]

Thank you. My apologies for misinterpreting your previous post. Please do not see this as a defeat. I should prefer to see it as a small victory for both of us and for science, since we have arrived at an improved understanding. It can be difficult to admit error and I congratulate you on your readiness to do so.

 

Ophiolite, you are the consummate professional. Thank you also. I am forever grateful for Unity's help in this endeavor. I have neither the intellect and/or abilities to navigate these difficult areas of this thesis and his continued help is indispensable to me.

 

This model is based largely on the information below.

 

I know I have posted this material repeatedly but it has been largely ignored by everyone.

 

 

This variable shown below is possibly the change in the core that is needed. Whether attributed to the Sun or not would not change it's causation if it can be attributed to thermal expansion of the core, and by that, the displacement of the mantle.

 

http://science.nasa...._magneticfield/

A supercomputer model showing flow patterns in Earth's liquid core.

Dr. Gary A. Glatzmaier - Los Alamos National Laboratory - U.S. Department of Energy.

This article states that globally the magnetic field has weakened 10% since the 19th century. And according to Dr. Glatzmaier; "The field is increasing or decreasing all the time," "We know this from studies of the paleomagnetic record." According to the article; Earth's present-day magnetic field is, in fact, much stronger than normal. The dipole moment, a measure of the intensity of the magnetic field, is now 8 × 1022 amps × m2. That's twice the million-year average of 4× 1022 amps × m2.

 

​ I am also encouraged by these observations below.

 

http://www.igpp.ucla...CRUS1572507.pdf

Magnetometer data from Galileo’s multiple flybys of Ganymede provide significant, but not unambiguous, evidence that the moon, like its neighboring satellites Europa and Callisto, responds inductively to Jupiter’s time-varying magnetic field.

 

This is mutual inductive coupling between a planet's field and it's moons, it seems very possible and even more likely than not to be occurring between our Sun and Earth when you consider the following evidence.

I keep posting this material below but never get a response to it, it shows evidence of solar magnetic induced warming of the planet.

 

Bond showed a correlation between 14C content and the Sun's level of electromagnetic activity, he then identified a link of these observations to the 1500 year cycle of ice buildup in the N. Atlantic. According to my model this could be a result of a variability within the planet's already unaccounted heat flow.

http://www.ncdc.noaa...clisci10kb.html

Gerard C. Bond, a researcher at the Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory has suggested that the ~1,500 year cycle of ice-buildup in the North Atlantic is related to solar cycles; when the sun is at its most energetic, the Earth’s magnetic field is strengthened, blocking more cosmic rays, which are a type of radiation coming in from deep space. Certain isotopes, such as carbon-14, are formed when cosmic rays hit plants and can be measured in ancient tree rings because they cause the formation of carbon-14. High levels of carbon-14 suggests an inactive sun. In his research Bond noted that increases in icebergs and drift ice occurred at the same times as the increase in carbon-14, indicating the sun was weaker at such times.

This is pretty clear that there is ample reason to suspect a correlation between solar magnetic caused inductive coupling of the Earth's magnetic field generator and that of climate variability.

Then there is these graphs that show solar magnetic field proxy measurements of 14C content that track perfectly through the climate variation of the last 1100 years, right through periods such as the medieval warm period and the little ice age. Solar magnetic flux is the only mechanism controlling the 14C content and timing. The 10 million dollar question is why does this content follow very accurately the climate history of the last 1100 years, coincidence?

Image below courtesy of USGS

http://pubs.usgs.gov.../fs-0095-00.pdf

Image below modified by this author.

As you can see this is correlated very convincingly. On the right side of the graph the line moves up out of the little ice age, again this is not temperature shown here, it is 14C content in tree ring samples indicating magnetic field strength. (the 14C content is inverted) It is actually declining due to increasing solar magnetic flux, it's content is inverted compared to the currently observed and debated temperature rise. An important point is this 14C variation is not due to any Earth bound forcing agent. The vertical rise (reduction in content) from about 1820 for example, is entirely the product of solar magnetic flux. The Sun's varying magnetic field is the only mechanism controlling 14C content and timing.

Now, for me to suggest there is a correlation between the solar magnetic field strength and the current abnormal temperature increase I will have to show evidence of extraordinarily unusual magnetic field strength that will correlate the 14C content in the graph with the atmospheric warming since The Little Ice Age.

http://www.ncdc.noaa...olanki2004.html

Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years

Nature, Vol. 431, No. 7012, pp. 1084 - 1087, 28 October 2004.

S.K. Solanki1, I. G. Usoskin2, B. Kromer3, M. Schüssler1, and J. Beer4

 

1 Max-Planck-Institut für Sonnensystemforschung (formerly the Max-Planck- Institut für Aeronomie), 37191 Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany

2 Sodankylä Geophysical Observatory (Oulu unit), University of Oulu, 90014 Oulu, Finland

3 Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Institut für Umweltphysik, Neuenheimer Feld 229, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany

4 Department of Surface Waters, EAWAG, 8600 Dübendorf, Switzerland

"According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago. We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode. Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades."

The researchers are limited by the current standard model to solar thermal radiation variability as the only possible cause. They are so close to the answer, even admitting a possible link between the unusual "rarity" of high sunspot numbers and "the unusual climate change during the twentieth century"

I leave it up to anyone to explain this data above. I also have a fit of climate variability to the Basin and Range extension (warm period) and the subsequent mountain building period that followed that was a cooler period in the geologic record. It is a nice fit and a valid prediction of observations.

I look forward to Unity's continued help in completing a model that can incorporate these unexplained phenomena. I really can't do it without him.

Edited November 29, 2013 by arc

[billiards]

Well someone needs to say something to pump blood into this thread again. I keep checking back to see how the ground work of my field has been shattered but there has been no progress. Otherwise I suppose we could just let the theory die. But what's the fun in that?

[arc]

Well someone needs to say something to pump blood into this thread again. I keep checking back to see how the ground work of my field has been shattered but there has been no progress. Otherwise I suppose we could just let the theory die. But what's the fun in that?

 

This is the way it works, little skirmishes, major battles and an occasional sniper all spread out over time. I also seem to wear people out, they need a holiday after trying to help me. And I'm waiting for Unity to rework the maths when he gets a chance, it's up to his discretion, I know he's busy and I am in no hurry. My web sites see a steady stream of viewers so the idea is circulating, I get a little curious when the daily count is 35 or so, maybe a classroom somewhere. Hey, someone can take a shot at those 14C graphs, explain that the multiple sourced evidence of solar magnetic forcing of the planet's thermal content is just a coincidence.

[Unity+]

 

This is the way it works, little skirmishes, major battles and an occasional sniper all spread out over time. I also seem to wear people out, they need a holiday after trying to help me. And I'm waiting for Unity to rework the maths when he gets a chance, it's up to his discretion, I know he's busy and I am in no hurry. My web sites see a steady stream of viewers so the idea is circulating, I get a little curious when the daily count is 35 or so, maybe a classroom somewhere. Hey, someone can take a shot at those 14C graphs, explain that the multiple sourced evidence of solar magnetic forcing of the planet's thermal content is just a coincidence.

I'm still trying to figure out the problem with the amount of energy needed from the Sun to cause the iron core to expand in relation to the electromagnetic field's effect on the iron core of the Earth.

 

I'm also currently working on the calculations of the plate movements based on this expansion and see if the model is similar to what is seen over periods of time. It is going to take some time to make these models.

 

EDIT: I am more leaning towards the argument that the Sun's emission of energy particles are actually responsible rather than the actual interaction of the electromagnetic fields. Though, someone could probably say this has no bearing of an explanation.

 

I found an article pertaining to this, and it says:

 

 

 

Particles from the sun produce the aurora. They do not simply collide with Earth’s atmosphere to produce the glow, if they did we would not see many aurorae because on their own the solar wind particles are not energetic enough. Instead, the interaction is more subtle and involves the combined magnetic fields of the sun and the earth to trap and accelerate the particles.

 

The particles are mainly ionised hydrogen (protons) and electrons plus a few helium and heavier ions. This is the 'solar wind' and it flows continuously*.

Solar flares, coronal mass ejections (CMEs) and coronal holes that are directed towards Earth substantially strengthen the solar wind and these are the real aurora makers.

 

The wind is a ‘plasma’, it is an overall electrically neutral mixture of positive and negatively charged particles. Plasmas trap magnetic fields and the solar wind carries not only particles to earth but also the sun’s magnetism.

 

Earth’s magnetic field, generated in its rotating and turbulent outer core of molten iron, is close to sea level like that of a bar magnet. Further out the impact of the solar wind and sun's magnetism distorts it.

 

The solar wind is supersonic and on Earth’s sunward side it produces a shock wave, the bow shock, where it first impacts Earth’s magnetic field and is abruptly slowed. Inside the bow shock the now subsonic wind particles flow around the earth’s magnetic field but the sun’s magnetism still trapped in the plasma interacts strongly. It pushes the Earth’s sunward field inwards and drags the night side out into a tail more than a million kilometres long. The region dominated by the sun’s magnetism is the magnetosheath. The inner region where Earth’s magnetism rules is our magnetosphere. The boundary is the magnetopause.

 

In the steady wind from a quiescent sun particles cannot get inside the magnetosphere. A few leak in but that is all. Aurorae need stronger magnetic interactions - reconnections.

 

When the sun’s trapped field points southwards** it is opposite in direction to that of the sunward field of the earth. When strengthened by a flare or CME it can interact strongly with Earth's field. The opposed fields snap and reconnect to a lower energy state. The sun’s and earth’s fields are now linked and there is a hole in the sunward side of the magnetosphere - an open path through which solar particles can flow inside.

 

The joined sun-earth magnetic field is still trapped in the moving solar wind plasma and it is swept with its particles onwards to the earth’s night side and into the tail of the magnetosphere. There the magnetic filed is increasingly stretched and the trapped particles fill a long inner tail of the magnetosphere called the plasma mantle.

 

Another magnetic filed reconnection or rearrangement ultimately produces the aurora. The long stretched field of the magnetotail is unstable. The stretched field lines snap like elastic bands and rearrange to form two regions, one controlled purely by the earth’s field and one that is part of the solar wind again. The earth's part contracts rapidly accelerating its trapped particles towards us.

 

The final twist, or rather corkscrew, is that the trapped particles follow spiral paths around the magnetic field lines as they accelerate towards Earth. Some feed the equatorial radiation belts. Others spiral along field lines joining the polar ovals. These eventually plunge into the upper atmosphere to make aurorae. However, because the particle clouds in the contracting fields can equally go northwards or southwards along a field line connecting both ovals (and some particles oscillate between the two), the resulting Aurora Borealis and Aurora Australis are mirror images of each other.

http://www.atoptics.co.uk/highsky/auror2.htm

 

So, in fact, the energy we could be talking about could be coming from both the emission of charged particles from the Sun and the interaction of the Sun's and Earth's electromagnetic field.

Edited December 13, 2013 by Unity+

[billiards]

 

 

I do not know whethere I support or disagree with Arc's hypothesis, it is bold, large and possibly revolutionary.

Arc did, however, start out by saying there were areas in which he lacks expertise and requesting help.

That suggests to me a necessary humility his opponents seem to lack.

 

If he is correct would we not be proud to say, we had a (very small) hand in that?

And surely that is one important function of this forum.

 

Studiot, I intended to address this post and apologise for the lateness of my response.

 

With regards to the opponents lack of humility. I must say I admire your patience and your high level of humility, but that is your style. I do not believe in humility for its own sake. If I think I know better then I will say that. I believe I am qualified to give a weighted opinion because I have been a student of geophysics for over a decade. I am currently near completion of a PhD thesis in geophysics which has a focus on seismically probing mantle deformation. I have worked with data types that most here probably do not even know exist. I read many papers, and do so critically. That's why when I read arc's work it is obvious to me that it is little more than a stab in the dark. For example, he repeatedly shows the figure of Glatzmeier's magnetic field, but it is entirely unclear to me how Glatzmeier's work supports his theory, other than the incredibly tenuous link that Glatzmeier has modelled the field getting weaker with time. (So what??) That is something we knew way before Glatmeier cam along, from actual observations, so why use Glatzmeier's model? One suspects it is because of the pretty picture. Such sloppy usage of references is typical and is reflected by the sloppy logic that ties the elements of the theory together.

 

If he is correct then he will have to try a lot harder to convince me. He could start by actually responding to my earlier criticisms without copying and pasting from his blog.

Edited December 31, 2013 by billiards

[Unity+]

With regards to the opponents lack of humility. I must say I admire your patience and your high level of humility, but that is your style. I do not believe in humility for its own sake. If I think I know better then I will say that. I believe I am qualified to give a weighted opinion because I have been a student of geophysics for over a decade. I am currently near completion of a PhD thesis in geophysics which has a focus on seismically probing mantle deformation. I have worked with data types that most here probably do not even know exist. I read many papers, and do so critically.

Someone's credibility within one field of science does not grant them the right to declare anything right or wrong without evidence, however. Simply declaring a hypothesis fraud because of one's credibility is more than just blind; it is arrogance.

 

Since my area of expertise is purely computer science along with mathematics I am lending a helping hand to his cause. I feel there is possibly something to come along with his hypothesis and I think it has potential. If I find that there is a problem with his hypothesis(especially dealing with the expansion and contraption of the inner core due to the hypothesis of the Sun's influence of the electromagnetic field which I am still calculating because of other projects I am working on) then I will display the problems mathematically. However, the problem is there is either currently no empirical evidence against the hypothesis or mathematical proof that there is simply no standing for the hypothesis.

 

And we do not simply have to convince you and only you, just to point it out. If we had to please every person in the world then we would have to claim the Theory of Evolution or Relativity not on firm standing because not everyone(surprisingly) considers those theories true. Most of the time it comes out of pure denial.

 

 

 

I believe I am qualified to give a weighted opinion

Don't we all?

 

 

 

I have worked with data types that most here probably do not even know exist. I read many papers, and do so critically. That's why when I read arc's work it is obvious to me that it is little more than a stab in the dark.

And we have all worked with data types that are related to our own field that you probably have never seen before yourself. With things I have done, you probably would be clueless to such data types. This statement is meaningless and has no bearing of evidence against the hypothesis at hand. Please, present something that would be more useful for discussion.

 

 

 

For example, he repeatedly shows the figure of Glatzmeier's magnetic field, but it is entirely unclear to me how Glatzmeier's work supports his theory, other than the incredibly tenuous link that Glatzmeier has modelled the field getting weaker with time. (So what??) That is something we knew way before Glatmeier cam along, from actual observations, so why use Glatzmeier's model?

Please refer to the post(what is the post number) with the Glatzmeier's magnetic field and I can see if I can understand what his work presents. If not, then he will be more willing, if his hypothesis is legitimate, to explain to all of us the correlation. If I do understand the information presented and think it is valid, then we clearly have a problem with the translation of information. Your supposed credibility will not be the determining factor within this discussion because evidence is the only credible source.

Edited January 1, 2014 by Unity+

[StringJunky]

billiards, on 31 Dec 2013 - 6:06 PM, said:

 

If I think I know better then I will say that. I believe I am qualified to give a weighted opinion because I have been a student of geophysics for over a decade. I am currently near completion of a PhD thesis in geophysics which has a focus on seismically probing mantle deformation. I have worked with data types that most here probably do not even know exist. I read many papers, and do so critically.

Adding to Unity+'s point: Forget the imminent gong, albeit no doubt deserved, and just give them the science. Argument from authority is considered quite poor form here as well as in science generally I believe. One's expertise, or lack of it, is on parade when one posts whether one declares a PhD or not. . Look what Einstein did and his track record, are we to believe everything he said as correct? He went up one or two garden paths and came out wrong. Anyway, it's quite nice and quite rare to see any form of collaboration on an idea here because I don't think I've seen it once in four years. So what if it turns out not mirroring reality in the final analysis, some valuable insight(s) will likely be gained by the participants and readers from an attempt at correct formulation of an idea tempered by ongoing critique.

[Unity+]

Adding to Unity+'s point: Forget the imminent gong, albeit no doubt deserved, and just give them the science. Argument from authority is considered quite poor form here as well as in science generally I believe. One's expertise, or lack of it, is on parade when one posts whether one declares a PhD or not. . Look what Einstein did and his track record, are we to believe everything he said as correct? He went up one or two garden paths and came out wrong. Anyway, it's quite nice and quite rare to see any form of collaboration on an idea here because I don't think I've seen it once in four years. So what if it turns out not mirroring reality in the final analysis, some valuable insight(s) will likely be gained by the participants and readers from an attempt at correct formulation of an idea tempered by ongoing critique.

What many don't realize is the original calculation that Albert Einstein had for the bending of space-time regarding to the path of the light during the eclipse was originally wrong when he calculated it, if I remember correctly. Luckily the original attempt at the experiment didn't work well because of World War I.

 

EDIT: To add on, the whole point of presenting a hypothesis is learn from it, not just to determine if you were right or not. If you simply don't tell the person why they are wrong and go about your business with them wondering what was wrong with it then they will just take scientists as arrogant people who have no incentive to take other people seriously because they have an authoritative attitude. I would like to learn of these flaws so in the future it may become useful for something else.

EDIT2: Sorry everyone if I haven't finished working on the calculations to provide some insight into inner core expansion and contraction from the effects of the interaction of the Sun's and Earth's electromagnetic field(and even released energy from the sun). I have been busy with other projects and will be coming with arc's calculations soon. I hope they provide insight into whether the hypothesis has any good stance or not.

Edited January 1, 2014 by Unity+

[billiards]

Adding to Unity+'s point: Forget the imminent gong, albeit no doubt deserved, and just give them the science. Argument from authority is considered quite poor form here as well as in science generally I believe. One's expertise, or lack of it, is on parade when one posts whether one declares a PhD or not. . Look what Einstein did and his track record, are we to believe everything he said as correct? He went up one or two garden paths and came out wrong. Anyway, it's quite nice and quite rare to see any form of collaboration on an idea here because I don't think I've seen it once in four years. So what if it turns out not mirroring reality in the final analysis, some valuable insight(s) will likely be gained by the participants and readers from an attempt at correct formulation of an idea tempered by ongoing critique.

 

Hey StringJunky, I don't believe I have argued from authority, i.e. I have never said I am right because I have qualifications x, y, and z. In fact I never even mentioned the PhD until just now. My argument has always been that arc's theory is very very probably -- indeed almost certainly -- wrong. Now I understand that that may sound arrogant. But I have justified my stance using reasoning.

 

1) Physical reasoning. Consideration of the energy required to induce the large volume changes in the liquid outer core seem to render the theory impossible.

 

2) Russel's teapot. Or the giant ant hypothesis. Or the flying spaghetti monster. I can make up a shed load of random crap that nobody will ever be able to prove wrong. Especially if my theory comes in the shape of a cartoon with edges that can be moulded to fit the facts in an ad hoc way. My problem (in case you hadn't already guessed) is that this approach is unscientific.

 

3) The seemingly random use of references complete with giant leaps of faith necessary to follow the theory. Again unscientific.

 

 

Of course I would be very happy to see some science done, and then if the theory still stands up then I would relax my stance a little. The problem of the dynamic mechanism behind plate tectonics is one of the great unsolved challenges facing earth sciences today. This is why the topic attracted my attention. I am genuinely interested in finding the solution.