geometry help

[Relative]

 

I twist my outer Obloid shape 90 degrees, No matter how I think, including using logic and lateral thinking, I can not make my shape fit.

 

 

 

I have come to you, the maths department of forum, for your help.

 

NO ONE, seems to understand my lateral thinking.

 

 

[pwagen]

I'm sorry if this is an uneducated question, but what, exactly, are you trying to "fit"?

[Relative]

I'm sorry if this is an uneducated question, but what, exactly, are you trying to "fit"?

I was curious, with the magnetic north and south poles shifting at an estimated 40 miles a year, and in general I could not think of how a magnetic field would change shape.

 

Then considering the Obloid shape of the Earth, drew my picture and twisted the shape.

 

So lateral thinking, has got me thinking, that the shift of the magnetic field of Earth, the swapping of the poles, will leave some parts of Earth, exposed to EMR, with no protection.

 

I can not see how the shape would fit?

Edited April 8, 2013 by Relative

[swansont]

Pole reversal is not thought to be a simple rotation of the field. You will see higher-order components of the field, not just a dipole.

 

Here's one simulation

http://www.psc.edu/science/glatzmaier.html

[Relative]

Pole reversal is not thought to be a simple rotation of the field. You will see higher-order components of the field, not just a dipole.

 

Here's one simulation

http://www.psc.edu/science/glatzmaier.html

I thank you for the interesting link, can you explain what you mean by higher- order components?

 

I have read the link, which doe's not make sense to me.

 

The inner core is surely a sphere shape?

 

The outer core must be sphere shaped with grooves cut out by the Lava?

 

And what is considered will happen with the shift?,

 

Will atmospheric pressure not crush us?

 

Will the shift and difference in pressure, 'not move the tectonic plates', I imagine 'that pressure of the MNP<magnetic north pole> to be less than else where, so will the plates not have a fulcrum effect with pressure?'. As the difference in MNP ' moves across the plates?.

[swansont]

I thank you for the interesting link, can you explain what you mean by higher- order components?

 

Quadrupole moment, for example. Magnets don't have to be dipoles. They just never appear as monopoles.

 

 

I have read the link, which doe's not make sense to me.

 

The inner core is surely a sphere shape?

 

The outer core must be sphere shaped with grooves cut out by the Lava?

 

Grooves cut by lava? What lava? Why grooves? The outer core is liquid and comprised of nickel and iron.

 

http://all-geo.org/highlyallochthonous/2008/03/where-the-earths-magnetic-field-comes-from/

 

And what is considered will happen with the shift?,

 

Will atmospheric pressure not crush us?

 

Why would it?

 

Will the shift and difference in pressure, 'not move the tectonic plates', I imagine 'that pressure of the MNP<magnetic north pole> to be less than else where, so will the plates not have a fulcrum effect with pressure?'. As the difference in MNP ' moves across the plates?.

 

I have no idea how you think this works.

[Relative]

Quadrupole moment, for example. Magnets don't have to be dipoles. They just never appear as monopoles.

Yes i see you what you mean and understand.

Grooves cut by lava? What lava? Why grooves? The outer core is liquid and comprised of nickel and iron.

 

http://all-geo.org/highlyallochthonous/2008/03/where-the-earths-magnetic-field-comes-from/

Thank you I do understand current theory, although it does not make sense to me as been correct.

Grooves cut by lava/magna, in the outer core in the mantle of the planet, grooves/notches been cut out of the existing matter that is not lava/magna.

Why would it?

 

 

I have no idea how you think this works.

How I think it works, ok, consider the buoyancy of gases, you consider it as buoncy, I consider it as centripetal force , all dense mass drawn to the center, less dense gases forced out of the way by the heavier /denser particles.

 

The magnetic field a lid on the pressure containing the vacuum of pressure/gases.

 

So if i was to contract the magnetic field, more pressure.

 

I see weather and pressure systems, all created by the magnetic force, High pressure been a broader , higher altitude of magnetic field, lower pressure, been a tightening,contracting of the magnetic shield.

 

 

So I see the tectonic plates as been pressure plates.

 

Held together by the pressure of atmosphere caused by the magnetic field lid.

[swansont]

The magnetic field a lid on the pressure containing the vacuum of pressure/gases.

 

So if i was to contract the magnetic field, more pressure.

No. Atmospheric pressure is due to gravity.

[Relative]

 

No. Atmospheric pressure is due to gravity.

Interesting, I do know that this suppose to be so, but we do not know what gravity is.

 

I have watched a video of a bottle of atmosphere taken from altitude that crushed when reaching the surface, our bodies are pouris, is it possible we let that pressure through, where as mass the earth can not?

 

 

And I thank you, this is by far the most normal forum I have been in, talking to me like a person and not an idiot.

 

 

 

Although from other forums,in which I have posted several ideas, there seems to be a lot of ideas popping onto youtube, generally meeting my thoughts I have posted. I am not interested in you tube, they are allowed to have my thought's, I happily share.

 

 

I would rather know that the MPS, is not going to be miss-shaped, and the pressure will not move the plates as it changes.

 

 

I thank you

[Bignose]

Interesting, I do know that this suppose to be so, but we do not know what gravity is.

We don't have to 'know' what gravity is to be able to make accurate predictions of it.

 

We do know how a certain lump of mass at a certain distance away imparts an attractive force. Just because we haven't discovered the mechanism on how that force is applied, doesn't me we haven't very accurately measured and validated predictions of that force.

 

And, in short, our models are very, very accurate.

 

Using that model of gravity, and another model on how gases behave, we can make a prediction of how much pressure and composition the atmosphere will have as a function of altitude. And those predictions are very, very good.

 

Does this 100% conclusively prove that the atmosphere is due to gravity? No. Nothing is 100% certain. But, the fact that the prediction based on the gravity model is so very, very good means we are just about as certain as can be.

Edited April 9, 2013 by Bignose

[michel123456]

(...)How I think it works, ok, consider the buoyancy of gases, you consider it as buoncy, I consider it as centripetal force , all dense mass drawn to the center, less dense gases forced out of the way by the heavier /denser particles.

 

(...)

Yes, I see it the same way.

[swansont]

Yes, I see it the same way.

 

OK. One of you make a model of it. Run the numbers.

[michel123456]

OK. One of you make a model of it. Run the numbers.

It is the Archimedes principle.

When applied to the globe, you get a centrifugal force (the buoyant force oriented from the center outwards).

Since the globe is not expanding, there must be another force going inwards equal to the buoyant force and that is a centripetal force (as Relative stated). A force called gravity.

 

And looking at the structure of the globe, indeed we observe more dense materials at the centre and less dense outwards, from the core to the atmosphere.

Everyting fits well. What number do you want?

Edited April 10, 2013 by michel123456

[swansont]

It is the Archimedes principle.

When applied to the globe, you get a centrifugal force (the buoyant force oriented from the center outwards).

Since the globe is not expanding, there must be another force going inwards equal to the buoyant force and that is a centripetal force (as Relative stated). A force called gravity.

Gravity? Relative's post talks of this being a magnetic force.

[michel123456]

 

Gravity? Relative's post talks of this being a magnetic force.

I do not agree with everything posted by Relative.