Earths Magnetic Field

[comingfrom]

Thank you.
I have taken your warning on board.
We hope the gravitational laws explain the orbits. They were made from observing the orbits.
I'm trying to visualize it.
Because it fell in, it sped up. Because it sped up, it got further out again. But going further out is working against gravity, so it loses speed again. That causes the body to fall inward again. A wavering balance.
Is there any buoyancy, from the Sun's E field?
~Paul

[webolife]

If I understand what you are referring to as "buoyancy" I would answer that yes, a comet's ion tail and to a lesser extent the dust tail demonstrate basic electrical buoyancy. This would also then apply to the magnetosphere tail trailing away from the sun from the earth. Does this buoyancy in some way affect the earth's orbital motion over time? Some of the EU folks say adamantly yes, others not so sure. I don't know of any solid measurements to confirm this.

[comingfrom]

Thank you, webolife. Which kind of surprises me, because we are able to measure the velocities of ions in the solar wind, yet we still haven't calculated the strength of the Sun's electric field?

You'd think all the mathematicians would have been onto it by now.
~Paul

[JHL]

There is still no reason to replace valid gravitational mechanics with wild (and rather personal) speculation that surely Something Else is the cause for observed phenomena. Nor does it fall on a community to disprove that speculation, more so when it hasn't even been presented in a coherent, testable form.

Since I am the censored culprit here, let me try and sweeten the pot. As a recent EU talk rightly points out, there are tests. The Five Finger Test, enumerated by Dr. Gary Schwartz (https://youtu.be/tl1joZztRsY) goes like this:

Five Factor Model of Responsible Beliefs

Theory
Research
Credible People
Personal Experience
No Responsible Reasons to Dismiss 1-4

Schwartz quotes the late Dr. Carl Sagan, who said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and "Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge."

It is clear that Sagan's adages confirm the Five Factor Model and vice versa. Or as the EU is fond of saying, there are patterns of evidence. Patterns and evidence; two words one trusts have a concrete meaning even where "gravity" apparently does not.

Nullifying gravity ad hoc is inconsistent with all of this. Augmenting gravity is not.

Can we reasonably turn these edicts and principles on their head in order to claim validity? They themselves say not: The net outcome of these principles is Occam's Razor. To co-opt them into wiggle room for unbacked, irrational, and fanciful notions simply defeats them. If you're going to dispute gravity, you're going to need to bring some heavy evidence.

Paul seems to be on another trajectory entirely. To wit:

So in other words, Paul, all the water in all the world's oceans should be sloshing over to one side and pouring off, right?

No, gravity works well at the surface, to hold all the water, and air, in place.

Are you somehow unfamiliar with the shape of the earth and why it's so?

No.

I am also not unfamiliar with misdirection.

Obviously it's not misdirection. You're claiming it is misdirection is misdirection, Paul.

What has the shape of earth to do with gravity 400 kms up?

That's my point: By your reasoning gravity must be fundamentally altered 400 km down too, or at 800 km and at any other arbitrary point, say Neptune's orbit or GOCE's. Can you reasonably claim that? Can you claim that orbital mechanics are a function of distance not related to conventional gravitational mechanics? That's the onus you face, Paul.

I was disputing that gravity at 400 kms is 86% of G, as witnessed by the weightlessness of astronauts.

I wasn't talking about the nature of an orbit.

We know there are variations in gravity. NASA makes maps to show it.

Exactly, so you were talking about the nature of an orbit, Paul, which is to say, you were talking about gravity as far as we know it. Until such time as you present another reasonable explanation for whatever it is you're imagining that's exactly what you're talking about.

Expanding on my point above, any thoughtful person can realize that gravity is a per se placeholder for a phenomenon we don't understand. Pretty much everything is. Gravity is a mechanical record of that phenomenon, so to put it.

But it's fruitless to surmise that gravity is a phenomenon that escapes those mechanics, especially with terms relating to a local planetary scale - Neptune isn't a planet with a gravitational relationship with the primary? There's no gravitational component at the galactic level, dark matter fiction notwithstanding?

Now you are expressing your opinions, which is at odds with the typical EU views.

Gravity can't escape mechanics, but Neptune, and galaxies, escaped gravity?

Sorry, but that sounds preposterous to me. Completely illogical

It sound illogical and preposterous until you realize that you inverted my meaning. I challenged your notion that gravity at Earth orbit couldn't account for weightless astronauts inside a metal can while Neptune could have a gravitational relationship with the Sun. I assume you're aware of the distances involved.

It's preposterous and illogical to question gravity at a local scale and accept it at a systemic scale, and that's what I'd said.

I first started pondering this question when I was a youth, in the days of Apollo, and Skylab, and MIR.

When I saw the astronauts become weightless immediately upon leaving the atmosphere, I wondered why they didn't fall towards the Sun, after they got outside the hold of the Earth's gravity.

The way gravity was taught to me, it is what holds the planets in their orbits,
so, logically, unless you are perched precisely on the cusp where earth and Sun's gravities are equal, one should be accelerating either towards one or the other. But that is not what we see.

When you started refuting gravitational attraction - and concurrent, unavoidable acceleration - is as irrelevant as the fact you don't grasp either today.

I hoped one would correct my misconception, if they surmised it to be nonsense.

Instead I got one who thought I was talking about the nature of an orbit, and tried to imply I don't know the shape of earth.

You ran quite afoul of basic theory and, somewhat naturally I suppose, then made a conclusion that inverted my intent. Neither stand to reason. If you cannot conceive that orbits perfectly explain weightlessness than kindly, as I said, have the courtesy not to remodel other's intent and meaning. The nature of those orbits being what it is, expecting to be proved scientifically wrong when whole bodies of knowledge are as available to you as they are to anyone else is fallacious.

I committed no "nonsense about Neptune not having a gravity relationship with the primary" and I didn't so much as imply you didn't know the shape of the Earth - to form an argument you have to change my meaning. I said that by your thinking you'd have to explain big holes in the evidence. If Neptune didn't itself net as orbitally weightless it wouldn't be orbiting, and further, probably the tides would have pulled it and every orbiting body apart. In other words, bodies couldn't exist. It seems sqrt(GM/r) and sqrt(Gm(2/r-1/a) cite velocities that not only orbit, but orbit weightlessly.

If that's not so, you should develop a proper counter theory. Elaborate on a force capable of acting like gravity that isn't already called gravity. Seriously, Paul, because while you also take the liberty to say I run afoul of EU thought, kindly remember that I first said that gravity was a great unknown, a placeholder of sorts for whatever actual phenomena it may be.

Here's your chance to make history.

PS: I hesitated before attempting a reply in this thread. It appears that bad moderation assumed the site's disclaimer forever comprises an iron-clad defense against unsupportable ideas being conflated with the general EU mindset - and any repeated disclaimer by a commenter is impermissible - and then removed my remarks except to let all of them stand within the negative replies of others. Such selective editing tends not to invite further commentary, less so when it too can be selectively sent down the rabbit hole for questionable reasons. I thought it over and concluded that I should at least rebut arguments made against my (moderated) absence. After all, my remarks still appear, just as targets now.

[comingfrom]

My apologies, JHL.

When you said those things, I thought you meant them as said.
I didn't realize you were saying what you thought I was, in effect, saying,
and so I spoke from a wrong presumption.

And thanks, webolife set me right.
~Paul

[seasmith]

http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files ... g_full.jpg

[seasmith]

It is necessary to visualize the Earth as a thermionic cathode of
12,600 km diameter with a red-hot surface, but this surface is enclosed
by a relatively thin, 20 to 60 km wet rocky layer, the crust.
This layer, together with the negative space charge, reduces but does not
completely inhibit the cathode's thermionic emission. -Michael Csuzdi
P. Eng.

7. Reversal [?] of the Geomagnetic Field.

Any theory attempting to explain the Earth's magnetic field should
equally explain those paleomagnetic observations which indicate that in
the Earth's history cooling lava outflows solidified sometimes in the
presence of a reverse polarity ambient magnetic field. From these
observations the statement has been inferred that the geomagnetic field
reversed its polarity several times in the past. This inference is not
necessarily true.
The geomagnetic field is the difference of two independently generated
magnetic fields, one is by the rotation of positive charges in the
magma, and the other is by the rotation of negative charges in the
crust.
These two magnetic generators can be examined separately.
(c)
Figure 7-1

Therefore, the qualitative properties of the geomagnetic field near to
the crust, below or above it, can be investigated on a· model which is a
charged spherical shell only, as in Figure 7-la. In turn, this shell
can be replaced by a wire coil (solenoid) either on a spherical or on a
cylindrical bobbin (Figure 7-2).

In this case an observer of fixed position can observe a
"reversal" of the magnetic· field. Of course, this is again Not a real
reversal of the coils' magnetic field.
...
The two magnetic generators of the Earth is a concentric arrangement of
the above discussed setup of two coils. Figure 7-4 illustrates the
resultant fields below and above the crust. The dot-dash line
indicates a possible position of the magnetic neutral zone.
However,
this zone now can move up and down in the crust, depending on the flux
densities, or on the density ratio of the two generated magnetic
fields, or on the radial positions of the two fields.
In the Earth's
history the magnetic flux density of certain surface areas changed
radically, and this caused the shift of the local magnetic neutral zone
in the vertical direction.

http://breakthroughinenergy.com/sitefil ... gyBook.pdf

...it seems possible to me and perhaps even likely that successive flows of lava will appear relatively reversed as a natural result of local magnetic field interactions. -webolife

http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 30#p107690

[GaryN]

Re: http://breakthroughinenergy.com/

Have only looked at the first few pages of the pdf but my first question was as to the source of the electrons? Are they coming in through the poles, from the Sun?

[webolife]

Gary,
That's a brilliant piece of work. Where did you find it? Has it been previously linked in a post?
I wonder if Charles Chandler has seen this, since it bears a great deal on his work?
I spent time in a few chapters, and Michael Csuzdi has done a great job detailing from an electrical engineering standpoint the basis for telluric currents and electrical flow in the atmosphere. He takes time to analyze piezoelectric effects, pressure vectors and gravitation and their relation to the electric and magnetic fields of the earth. I'm amazed we haven't seen this crop up before now, or did I just miss it?

To your question of electron origin, Csuzdi sees the mantle as a cathode [ie. the interior sources electrons] and insolation as the driving factor for the voltage gradient measured with respect to altitude, eg. on the slopes of mountains.

Now, having thus endorsed Csuzdi's work, a couple of detractions:
1. My vectors for origination of gravitational and electrical potentials are exactly the opposite direction from Csuzdi's, as I would have the primary force field be centropic, eg. toward the sun, whereas the author's are from the sun. Otherwise I think his dynamics are very well thought out.
2. Since this publication [1980], much more research has been done on the solar wind so I'm thinking Csuzdi would revise some of his thinking for the placement and shape of the magnetosphere, and might have reworked some of his math as well.

[GaryN]

Gary,
That's a brilliant piece of work. Where did you find it? Has it been previously linked in a post?

seasmith found it, in a link from a post by jimmcginn. I have still to read it, but my concerns from reading just the outline was that it assumes the conventional model of the hot core of the Earth, and also does not explain where the electrons are being supplied from. If just from a hot core, then surely the electrons would have been depleted after (supposedly) billions of years of emissions?
I have a model that can supply electrons and protons, the generation of hydrocarbons, and the geo-neutrinos, but it would be best posted in the New Insights department.

[seasmith]

... assumes the conventional model of the hot core of the Earth,

Gary, Actually i don't think he does. He has hot molten (capacitive) sub-layers with a space charge;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_charge
but he posits something like critical-phase water in the core.

The magmic asthenosphere and the emanating heat (thermionic emission) at the crustal layer. he does attribute to primary beta and gamma radiation from the core, similar to emission from an atomic nucleus.

No one really knows what happens in Earth's core or in nuclei, but it would not seem unreasonable to me that from a 6000 km deep center of mass, that there would be atomic fusion and fission taking place.
No way to know for sure.

[seasmith]

http://www.sciencealert.com/this-14-bil ... sion-power

[GaryN]

Thanks s, I have now begun reading his papers from the beginning. So far everything looks good, my only reservation so far being that of the heat source and the structure of Earths interior, but as you say, no way to know for sure.

[GaryN]

Now trying to reconcile his models with what is known and thought to be known about Uranus.

[seasmith]

Earth's water may have formed deep within mantle, says study

The simulations revealed that the silica and fluid hydrogen could form water when exposed to temperatures of just over 1400 degrees Celsius and at pressure 20,000 times higher than Earth's atmospheric pressure.

Silica is found in abundance above and below the surface of the Earth in the form of the mineral quartz the Earth's crust is 59 per cent silica.

They also believe the release of this pressure could be responsible for triggering earthquakes hundreds of kilometres below the Earth's surface.
...
"We were initially surprised to see in-rock reactions, but we then realised that we had explained the puzzling mechanism at the base of earlier Japanese experimental work finding water formation," said Professor Niall English from UCD School of Chemical and Bioprocess Engineering.

The findings were published in the journal Earth and Planetary Science Letters.

http://www.dnaindia.com/scitech/report- ... dy-2312708

Gary, I've heard Uranus was first sky god, and was castrated by Talbott's buddy Kronos.
What are you looking at ?