PDA

View Full Version : Solar typhoons & massive Earth crust shift



Prince
2002-May-14, 11:25 PM
http://www.dmpub.com/solartyphoon/solar1.htm

The Bad Astronomer
2002-May-14, 11:39 PM
Just a friendly note from the guy who runs this outfit:

I am not particularly fond of post-and-run techniques. That is, posting a URL with no notes, and then just letting people talk about it, and never following up.

I have seen that you do occasionally post again in a thread you start, but it's pretty rare. Make it more common. Defend what you post, or else you won't be allowed to post here anymore.

Tim Thompson
2002-May-14, 11:58 PM
Nice artwork. Good science fiction story(?). No astronomy. Bad physics. Make that really bad physics. Compression of the magnetic field like that does diddley-sqaut to the deep interior, and even if it did, the mechanical coupling between the magnetic field and the fluid inner core is tenuous at best. And even if you transmit energy to the core, then you have to transmit it to the mantle, which is another not terribly efficient process. So diddley-squat (DS) becomes (diddley-squat)^3, one for the original DS, one for DS factor of DS that goes into the core, and one for the DS factor of the DS factor of the original DS that makes it to the mantle.

Jigsaw
2002-May-15, 02:41 AM
Poo. I'm not even a physicist and I can tell it's silly. First I read this--

[The Earth] has a rotating iron core that generates an intense magnetic field, usually 50 times stronger than the field created by the Sun...
--and I go, "Huh? Is Earth's magnetic field really 50 times stronger than the Sun's? How can that be?"

And then I read this--

...At the source, the Sunís field is much stronger than the Earthís field, but the magnetic force, like gravity, decreases in power with the inverse square law. By the time the field has reached the Earth, the force has decreased dramatically.
--and I go, "Geez, what a WAFFLE." And then out of curiosity, I keep reading, until I get to this part--

It is my belief, based upon historical evidence, myth, and my current research into Solar-Terrestrial interaction, that these occur on very long and regular cycles, perhaps in the thousands of years.
--and I go, "Based on myth? This guy is basing his theory on myths? Instead of something like, say, research, data, statistics?"

Right.

I'm outta here. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

2002-May-15, 04:57 PM
? Why Bother ?
i've watched Solar Cycle 22 B4 watching this 1 #23 ?
anyway my most reliable of all indicators is
actually the TV set itself, as when Earth get
hit with Electrons and Protons ariving from
the activities of the Past {on the Sun}
they canactually overRIDE the station's
broadcast signals. so its possible for me to
say to MySelf ..Yes.. I saw that. and I tune
in a Short wave reciver / or the AM band So I see & hear at the same time.. This way its pretty easy to tell that Days of our Lives is just to boring to watch.

Prince
2002-May-15, 09:15 PM
The BA wants me to defend the site I posted. Who says I have to defend it? On the contrary, I'll attack it! I dislike Jared's (Hebrew for "Decline"!) reference to the Earth's "66,000 mph velocity round the sun". Let him show one experiment where that purported velocity has been directly measured! "We cannot feel our motion through space. Nor has any experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion!" (Lincoln Barnett). And I don't like all this "160 million years ago" talk. It is well known that the Earth cannot be more than 10,000 years old, since then it would have had the field of a magnetic star, even according to cherished uniformitarian extrapolations. However I do like his site's apolcalyptic undertones, as the Bible repeatedly speaks (eg Isaiah 34, Zephaniah 2, Malachi 3) of the Sun sending us a Flood of Fire within the next 238 years!

Tim Thompson
2002-May-15, 10:24 PM
Prince: It is well known that the Earth cannot be more than 10,000 years old, since then it would have had the field of a magnetic star, even according to cherished uniformitarian extrapolations.

I believe it was Wolfgang Pauli who once asserted, "That's so bad it's not even wrong".


On Creation Science and the Alleged Decay of the Earth's Magnetic Field (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/magfields.html)


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tim Thompson on 2002-05-15 18:26 ]</font>

AncientSkyMan
2002-May-15, 11:40 PM
How nice that Mr. Thompson has solved all the mathmatics for Magnetohydrodynamic calculations. How I wish he would share his math so I can check the work myself, because I don't believe him. How does he know what levels of inducted energy are driven through the deep core? Has Mr. Thompson ever heard of geomagnetic storms? Does he remember the big black-outs in Canada in the late 80's from geomagnetic induction? This 'small' storm inducted hundreds of thousands of volts through the electric power grid. A bunch of flimsey wires on poles . . . . imagine how much induction was going through mountains of iron ore . . imagine how much was going through the core.

Mr. Thompson says my physics is bad. . . where? He says my astronomy is bad, once again, where? It is all fine and well to flame me but at the very least he should back up his words and not just attack me with nonsense like 'diddley-squat' and 'diddley-squat^3'.

To address his only specific complaint:

"And even if you transmit energy to the core, then you have to transmit it to the mantle, which is another not terribly efficient process"

Energy will get inducted through the mantle, but as the mantle is made up of mostly silicate materical, it doesn't conduct the induction. The field passes through the superheated/supercompressed silicated and inducts into the conductive core. No bad physics there. How much energy? I have my ideas but as I mention in my article, no one has come up with the math to test it into theory. Please Mr. Thompson, prove me wrong and teach me how to calculate exactly the amount of energy directed at the Earth's core, in it's various components, while taking into account the amount deflected by the ionosphere, and taking into account the deflection caused by Earth's magnetic field, and putting it all into a nice neat little formula where I can punch in solar wind velocity and pressure and get Earth core magnetic induction readings. . . . . until he provides that, his opinion is worth, well, diddley-squat.

One final note, just because someone works at NASA, doesn't mean that they know what they are talking about, I mean, it's a government job after all . . . .



On 2002-05-14 19:58, Tim Thompson wrote:
Nice artwork. Good science fiction story(?). No astronomy. Bad physics. Make that really bad physics. Compression of the magnetic field like that does diddley-sqaut to the deep interior, and even if it did, the mechanical coupling between the magnetic field and the fluid inner core is tenuous at best. And even if you transmit energy to the core, then you have to transmit it to the mantle, which is another not terribly efficient process. So diddley-squat (DS) becomes (diddley-squat)^3, one for the original DS, one for DS factor of DS that goes into the core, and one for the DS factor of the DS factor of the original DS that makes it to the mantle.

Chip
2002-May-16, 12:03 AM
On 2002-05-15 17:15, Prince wrote:
"...It is well known that the Earth cannot be more than 10,000 years old, since then it would have had the field of a magnetic star, even according to cherished uniformitarian extrapolations."

Radioactive isotopes occur naturally within Earth's minerals and their decay into stable isotopes of other elements can have half lives ranging from 700 million to more than 100 billion years. The dating techniques of "Radiometric Dating" are well established, and can indicate the age of a rock at least to the last time it was melted or recycled by the Earth's erosion. This is common knowledge, and you can find it in many sources in print and on the Internet.

Keeping this in mind, Radiometric Dating has been able to accurately place some of Earth's rocks to within excess of 3.5 billion years. Rocks discovered protruding from the ground in Greenland and the Acasta Gneisses area in Canada are among the oldest measurable rocks. Only 10,000 years is far too young. It may not quite be Bad Astronomy, but it is Bad Geology. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

Chip

AncientSkyMan
2002-May-16, 12:46 AM
First of all, thanks for posting my site on Bad Astronomy . . . .NOT!. Now, let's check your 'facts'. My name, Jared, means Descend, or he who descended from (typically) on high. Never did it mean decline. Do you speak Hebrew and study the Torah? I lived in Israel and Sinai for over two years, read, write, and speak Hebrew, and have studied Torah at least once a week for decades.

As for the rest of your gibberish, it is just that. If you can't accept simple physical phenomena as reality (like the Earth revolving around the Sun), then in all honesty, debating with you is a pointless proposition.



On 2002-05-15 17:15, Prince wrote:
The BA wants me to defend the site I posted. Who says I have to defend it? On the contrary, I'll attack it! I dislike Jared's (Hebrew for "Decline"!) reference to the Earth's "66,000 mph velocity round the sun". Let him show one experiment where that purported velocity has been directly measured! "We cannot feel our motion through space. Nor has any experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion!" (Lincoln Barnett). And I don't like all this "160 million years ago" talk. It is well known that the Earth cannot be more than 10,000 years old, since then it would have had the field of a magnetic star, even according to cherished uniformitarian extrapolations. However I do like his site's apolcalyptic undertones, as the Bible repeatedly speaks (eg Isaiah 34, Zephaniah 2, Malachi 3) of the Sun sending us a Flood of Fire within the next 238 years!

Jigsaw
2002-May-16, 03:05 AM
[aside]
Prince, the BA isn't saying you have to "defend" a site you post--what he's saying is that we all find it a teensy bit annoying to have people post a link to a story, but without telling us how they feel about it. When you post a link to a site, are you saying, "Hey, guys, look at this completely preposterous and ignorant website!" or are you saying, "Hey, guys, look at this marvelously insightful and informative website!" or are you saying, "Hey, guys, what do you think of this website?"

Either way, tell us, 'cause we're not mind readers, okay? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

Prince
2002-May-16, 10:48 AM
The name "Jared" coomes from the Hebrew name "Yared", Genesis 5:15, and means "descent, decline". He was so named because of the declining physical and spiritual stature and longevity of the men after Adam. In Israel, the perjorative epthiet "Yared" ie "Descender" is used to apply to those 1 million Israeli traitors and criminals (300,000 in California alone) who have descended and emigrated from the Holy Land: check out http://www.rense.com/general24/israelidrugsmugglers.htm and http://www.rense.com/general25/you.htm to see some of their nefarious activities. As for Geocentricity, if you believe in Mach & Einstein, you are obliged to accept it as an equally good model depicting reality. If you don't, then how do you explain the MM and MG results? Check out http://www.geocentricity.com

2002-May-16, 11:53 AM
<a name="20020516.3:47"> page 20020516.3:47 aka Long Period & RegUlar Cycle
On 2002-05-14 22:41, Jigsaw wrote:
Poo. I'm not even a physicist and I can tell it's silly. First I read this--

[The Earth] has a rotating iron core that generates an intense magnetic field, usually 50 times stronger than the field created by the Sun...
--and I go, "Huh? Is Earth's magnetic field really 50 times stronger than the Sun's? How can that be?"

And then I read this--

...At the source, the Suns field is much stronger than the Earths field, but the magnetic force, like gravity, decreases in power with the inverse square law. By the time the field has reached the Earth, the force has decreased dramatically.
--and I go, "Geez, what a WAFFLE." And then out of curiosity, I keep reading, until I get to this part--

It is my belief, based upon historical evidence, myth, and my current research into Solar-Terrestrial interaction, that these occur on very long and regular cycles, perhaps in the thousands of years.
--and I go, "Based on myth? This guy is basing his theory on myths? Instead of something like, say, research, data, statistics?"

Right.

I'm outta here. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif
my guess {based on My th} THat THis "eposodic" uplift lasts 400 current Earth Years 3:50 A.M. 3:51 A.M. hmm? wrong psWORD hmm?
read bottum line first | & regular cycle
_3:48 A.M. PST HUb' Yeah I go along with Long period

2002-May-16, 12:11 PM
<a name="20020516.4:0"> page 20020516.4:0 aka Exactly [Back to Back]
On 2002-05-16 07:53, HUb' wrote: Back to: HUb'
ak Long Period & RegUlar Cycle
On 2002-05-14 22:41, Jigsaw wrote: To: Earthlings
Well? whomever
anway in the thread some where I saw the "MATH" ?
so heres my comment to myself
YEAH, I went to the book store & looked at the computer
Math program books (number of on shelf DOWN 50%)
So I ask at the counter How many do you sell
(the answere was "NONE")
hese occur on very long and regular cycles, perhaps in the thousands of years.
HUb' says: really, I wanted to know the
Maple to MatLab ratio { i guess its 0:0 }
Right.
{and say to myself Why no Math?} [hmm?]
if you wondering I have LIE, BIG LIE, & gnuplot .?. I use gnuplot a lot , and LIE a little
my guess {based on My th} THat THis "eposodic" uplift lasts 400 current Earth Years 3:50 A.M. 3:51 A.M. hmm? wrong psWORD hmm?
read bottum line first | & regular cycle
_3:48 A.M. PST HUb' Yeah I go along with Long period
ftp://ftp.dartmouth.edu/pub/gnuplot

Russ
2002-May-16, 05:15 PM
Dear Mr. AncientSkyMan:

It is clear from your response that your math skills and understanding of electricity are not up to the tasks you wish to share. I'll note further below.



(snip) How I wish he would share his math so I can check the work myself, because I don't believe him. How does he know what levels of inducted energy are driven through the deep core?

The IEEE has some very good publications about this. I suggest you go to their web site and acquire some of thier publications and read them for understanding when they arrive.


Has Mr. Thompson ever heard of geomagnetic storms? Does he remember the big black-outs in Canada in the late 80's from geomagnetic induction? This 'small' storm inducted hundreds of thousands of volts through the electric power grid.

I can't estimate what Mr. Thompson may know but, again, your misunderstanding of the situation is showing. It was the amperage generated by the storm that tripped the system not the voltage. Also, again, the IEEE has some really good stuff on this topic.


A bunch of flimsey wires on poles . . . . imagine how much induction was going through mountains of iron ore . . imagine how much was going through the core.

You contracict yourself in an interesting manner above. You seem to recognize the flimseyness of the electrical grid but not recognize the significance your own comment about "...mountains of iron ore..." and the core itself. You seem to think that the mangnitude of the current induced by the storm on the grid has similarities in the Earth. I can assure you that on a global scale, the storm induced current in the Earth was infintessimally small. The difference is....words fail me.


Mr. Thompson says my physics is bad. . . where? He says my astronomy is bad, once again, where?

Ahem....well, everywhere. At least it appears that way from what you have written.


While it is really tempting to go on and address each of your points individually, I'll stop here by saying you REALLY nead to study your geophysics and electrophysics. I can't say for sure but I'd bet Mr. Thompson doesn't have the time to give you a two year course in these subjects, via this medium.

My best of wishes in your efforts. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif


(edit to correct code)
_________________
Lighten up! I'm here for the fun of it.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Russ on 2002-05-16 13:23 ]</font>

Tim Thompson
2002-May-16, 07:41 PM
ASM: How I wish he would share his math so I can check the work myself, because I don't believe him.

I read your Solar Typhoons page (http://www.dmpub.com/solartyphoon/solar1.htm) page from beginning to end. Know what I found? Lot's of words. Know what I didn't find? Math. None at all. Not an equation in sight. If you are so anxious to see my math, maybe you should take a crack at a little math yourself. For instance, you could calculate how much energy is actually added to the Earth's magnetic field. Or calculate the compression ratio between the field at the surface, and the field interior to the core. You could calculate the conversion of magnetic field energy into thermal energy in the core. You could, but you don't. I'll show you mine, when you show me yours.

ASM: Has Mr. Thompson ever heard of geomagnetic storms? Does he remember the big black-outs in Canada in the late 80's from geomagnetic induction? This 'small' storm inducted hundreds of thousands of volts through the electric power grid.

The solar flare of March 13, 1989, was then, and remains now, the most powerful flare recorded, as judged by X-ray flux. I don't know if it induced hundreds of thousands of volts in the grid or not, and I suspect that you don't know either. However, I do know why the grid failed, and it was not because the whole grid was overpowered. It was because of the failure of a single voltage regulator on one line of a grid that was already operating at near peak load. Had the grid not been operating under such a high load, it would not have failed. That regulator failure pushed more power onto the rest of the grid than it could handle, because of its already slim margin. So the whole grid failed.

You don't seem to be interested in aything except stringing buzzwords together, and then insulting everybody who calls you on it. You certainly aren't interested in doing any of your own math, so why should I do any for you? Why should I even expect that you could understand it, even if I did? When you come up with an idea that's worth more than diddley-squat, I'll treat it apporpriately. In the meantime, I'll treat the diddley-squat idea that you have come up with appropriately.

Chip
2002-May-16, 08:18 PM
On 2002-05-16 15:41, Tim Thompson wrote to ASM: "...When you come up with an idea that's worth more than diddley-squat, I'll treat it appropriately. In the meantime, I'll treat the diddley-squat idea that you have come up with appropriately."


"Diddley-squat" is such a nifty phrase. Must have an interesting origin.

ASM's rudeness is almost as bad as his assumptions. No math on his website too. No attempt at some figures that just describe something. Even diddley-squat has more math in it! It even managed to have it's own equation.

D = 1/C

Someone wrote a goofy essay about it. According to this webpage (http://www.galactic-guide.com/articles/2U83.html), it is defined as an equation that is "as close to next to nothing" as to be just like zero, with a term that can be an amount that's just like zero, but "friendlier". /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Chip on 2002-05-22 15:25 ]</font>

beskeptical
2002-May-17, 03:33 AM
On 2002-05-15 20:46, AncientSkyMan wrote:
Do you speak Hebrew and study the Torah? I lived in Israel and Sinai for over two years, read, write, and speak Hebrew, and have studied Torah at least once a week for decades...However I do like his site's apolcalyptic undertones, as the Bible repeatedly speaks (eg Isaiah 34, Zephaniah 2, Malachi 3) of the Sun sending us a Flood of Fire within the next 238 years!


Since so much of the Bible and the Torah are not supported by scientific evidence, there is no basis to use these religious texts to support a scientific premise.

Even when refuseing to disbelieve religious texts, many at least see the writings as parables or symbolic rather than literal. To try to interpret the Bible literally one would have to reject reality as most of the world perceives it.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: beskeptical on 2002-05-16 23:34 ]</font>

Prince
2002-May-17, 10:02 AM
Give an example from the Pentateuch of something to be interpreted (bearing in mind the existence of the Oral Law) in anything other than its literal sense? There is no compelling contradiction from empirical science nor from the data of the senses to learn them other than literally.

GrapesOfWrath
2002-May-17, 10:21 AM
On 2002-05-16 06:48, Prince wrote:
those 1 million Israeli traitors and criminals (300,000 in California alone) who have descended and emigrated from the Holy Land

BA, clean up, aisle 3.

2002-May-17, 03:43 PM
1: Just as Lorentz & Maxwell provided the
On 20022: Syntax & Lexicon for A Math that delt with
3: what i shall refer to as the "SMOOTH" CURL
4: of the Electrical and Magnetic fields..
5: its fairly easy to 4cast [into the future]
6: and predict that the syntax, lexicon, & RULES
7: of the "RUMPEL" for any general unit of gravity.
8: such THat when rumple reaches A Max the GUG vanishes
9: in a tempril contraction as centricity reframes 2elsewhere
this message will repeat in Turning2 [link later]

Donnie B.
2002-May-17, 07:07 PM
On 2002-05-17 06:02, Prince wrote:
Give an example from the Pentateuch of something to be interpreted (bearing in mind the existence of the Oral Law) in anything other than its literal sense? There is no compelling contradiction from empirical science nor from the data of the senses to learn them other than literally.

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

So there was no light at the time the Earth formed? The sun wasn't shining? No other stars? Yet there was water? Liquid water?

I could go on, but the first two verses of Genesis already take us into the realm of metaphor... so I'll stop there.

Prince
2002-May-17, 07:41 PM
Why metaphor? Presumably you think that without the sun the waters would have frozen? The Earth initially needed no outside source of heat. Even today in our supposedly "old" Earth, enough heat is generated to create hot springs, and often lava. The initial creation involved the movement of the entire surface and of every layer of the interior. It is probable that the waters of the first Creation days were extremely hot.

Diogenes
2002-May-17, 09:13 PM
Oooh, oooh, ooooh!!
I cannot wait for the next post from 'AncientSkyMan'...

Prince,
You do start some interesting/entertaining threads. I suspect I'm not the only one who suspects a bit of Devil's advocacy on your part.

AncientSkyMan
2002-May-18, 03:47 AM
Well, you want math? Okies . . . here goes (remember, i don't have any math fonts here so you'll have to make it out if you can):

10^12 Watts = Amount of Power generated by regular solar wind.

As per Carl Gauss, 95% of Earth's Magnetic Field is internal, 5% external. These measurements are for a 'normal' day, not during a geomagnetic storm.

Main Magnetic Field, approx 50,000 nT

External Magnetic Field, normal flux approx. 500 nT, or 1/100th strength. External Magnetic field is caused by the Sun.

Magnetic fields are conservative and follow the 1/r^2, or inverse square, and obeys Laplace's equation, the potential voltage V, is in the form:

(at this point i realize there is no way I can write summations (sigma) in HTML. . . ..)

Well, I can't do the math here, cause there is no way to display it. Anyone know how to show calculus in HTML?

Anyway, I'll try to go on textually . . .

There are many currents that flow in the magnetosphere, which are caused by the complex interplay between the solar wind and the Earth's magnetic field. Although these currents ARE ONLY PARTIALLY UNDERSTOOD AT THE PRESENT, the one that has been studied most extensively is the Birkeland current, which has typically been associated with auroras. WIth the solar wind encounters the Earths magnetic fieold about 50,000 kilometers above the Earth's surface, an electromotive force (EMF) of about 100,000 volts is generated. This applied EMF is distributed throughout the magnetosphere and the Earth's upper atmosphere. A portion of the solar-wind-generated EMF, about 10,000 volts, accelerates electrons down magnetic field lines into the ionosphere at altitudes of about 100 kilometers. These electrons first travel horizontally and then back up to the upper atmosphere to form a closed circuit. Currents as high as one million amperes are common, and total power generated on an average day is 3 x 10 ^ 12 watts. It is the high-speed electrons near the bottom of the current loop that generate a magnetic field that causes the Earth's magnetic field to fluctuate, which induces current on the Earth's surface.

During a regular geomagnetic storm, the Alaska pipeline carries as much as 1000 A. Voltages as high as 10 volts per linear mile of high-tension wire conductor have been measured. This leads to potential differences of 10,000 volts in a 1000 mile stretch of cable (there are over 1,000,000 miles of cable in the U.S. alone).

Now I quote from The Space Environment Center, a group within NASA:
"Earth weather forecasters have been trying fo the last 30 years to construct a mathematical model of teh global weather using the cery complex equations of fluid dynamics to describe the circluation of the oceans and atmosphere. Even with the best supercomputers to run these models, it has proven impossible to precisely model Earth weather. Modelling the solar-terrestrial environment is vastly more complex. The physics necessary to do this includes not only fluid dynamics, but also Maxwell's equations. This combination is known as Magnetohydrodynamics (MHD), and at the present time the euqtions of MHD cannot be completely solved analytically. Numerical solutions exist which involve the use of a computer in a "trial and error" fashion. Numerical solutions, however, can give incorrect results and at best are an approximation. There is some suspicion that we have not yet developed the physics necessary to fully understand the Sun, where stong magnetic fields are erupting and plasmas swril at ultra-high temperatures. CERTAINLY IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO SIMULATE THESE CONDITIONS IN EXPERIMENTS ON EARTH. (bold is mine, not NASA's).

Well, my Solar Typhoon idea compresses the magnetosphere to much less that 50,000 kilometers, and pushes the current loop down to a tens of kilometers or less, with an overall increase of EMF by 1000% (rough estimate). The amount of power generated then gets to be to the levels necessary to create heating scenarios within the Earth, which are the foundation of my theory.

That is enough typing for you to see that I have done my homework, and know a HELL of a lot more about this that these so called 'experts' who just trash my ideas with no further explaination.

And for the Torah, I read it often but where did I once even suggest I take it literally? Hmmmm? Get a life and think for yourselves, stop vomiting up the 'offical' science party line. Don't you know that 'real' scientists insist that they just don't know and that those who cloak themselves in all-truth are in fact covering up their own ignorance of how ignorant they are. At least I know I don't know, hence the reason for calling my idea a hypothesis.

Just in case some of you don't know, a hypothesis is just an idea backed by some research and logic. A theory is a hypothesis that has an experimental framework around it that can be tested and used to generate a series of facts that support the idea.

Jigsaw
2002-May-19, 03:05 AM
A theory is a hypothesis that has an experimental framework around it that can be tested and used to generate a series of facts that support the idea.
Er, no, I'm afraid I'm gonna have to quibble with you there. A theory is a hypothesis that has an experimental framework around it that can be tested and used to generate a series of facts. Period.

And if the facts turn out to support the idea, then hey, that's great, break out the champagne and send out the press releases.

But if the facts don't support the idea, then you get a new idea.

So, what facts do you have that support your idea?

Tim Thompson
2002-May-22, 01:33 AM
ASM: That is enough typing for you to see that I have done my homework, and know a HELL of a lot more about this that these so called 'experts' who just trash my ideas with no further explaination.

It is enough typing for me to see that you didn't do the right homework, evade the main issue entirely, know a hell of a lot less than you think you do, and still haven't learned from the sin of arrogance.

Nothing you said is anything other than common knowledge. How can that possibly make you more knwledgeable than people who spend their lives studying magnetospheres and magnetic fields?

What happens at the surface is not at issue. What happens inside the earth is at issue, and you didn't say anything about that at all. Just look at your own "second cornerstone": "A solar typhoon , if prolonged, will collapse the Earth's magnetosphere to much less than the six Earth diameters now recorded in the most sever solar storms. This collapse of the magnetosphere will cause induced current on the Earth's surface measured in the tens or hundreds of volts per linear mile of conductor. This will transfer enormous amounts of heat into the Earth's inner core, via magnetic induction."

Aside from the obvious blunder that current is not measured in volts per unit distance (it is measured in charge per unit time), this doesn't make physical sense. Magnetic induction does not generate heat, it generates current flow. The current flow will generate heat, if the medium is a poor conductor and has high ohmic resistance. The Earth's core is a good conductor, so the heat generated even by a very large event would not be very impressive. Furthermore, even if you did generate a lot of heat in the core, the time scale for heat transfer by conduction through the mantle is about 10^11 years, and by convection of the viscous mantle, about 10^8 years. All that heat would not even make its presence known at the surface for 100 million years.

But in fact the core will never see any magnetic induction. In order to do that you need to cause the magnetic field in the core to be time variable, or in other words, you have to compress it in the same way you compress the outer field. But the magnetic field pressure is proportional to the square of the magnetic field strength, which in turn is proportional to 1/r^3 (not 1/r^2), because it is a dipole (the quadropole field varies as 1/r^4, the octopole field as 1/r^5 and so on). Combine the field strength squared with a 1/r^3 field dependence, and you can see that the inner field is very stiff, essentially incompressible. It will not react to the compression of the outer field, and therefore there will be no magnetic induction in the core.

Furthermore, as you compress the outer field through the ionosphere, the generation of large currents in the ionosphere tranfers the energy of the compressed field to the currents, which means that this energy loss mechanism has to be accounted for before you can talk about generating telluric currents, or impossible field induction to the core.

On top of all that, the coefficient of thermal expansion in the mantle is about 10^-5 per Kelvin. So, you would have to raise the temperature of the entire earth by about 1 Kelvin, just to get it to expand by 0.001%. Now I've done enough typing. I will leave it as an exercise for the student, to figure out from the volume of the earth, and the effective heat capacity of its interior, how much heat energy would be required to raise the global internal temperature by one single degree Kelvin.

Cheers.

Jigsaw
2002-May-22, 02:15 AM
Go Tim! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

Lisa
2002-May-22, 09:04 AM
I've been waiting several days for this. I thought Jay would beat Tim.
S**** losing a bet with yourself.
Lisa

Tim Thompson
2002-May-22, 06:25 PM
TT: I will leave it as an exercise for the student, ...

OK, so I lied. Sue me. But since I have a few minutes, and don't feel like waiting, I'll do it myself.

The mass of the earth is about 5.97x10^24 kg, and its effective specific heat is about 1000 Joules/kg/Kelvin. So just multiply and you get an effective heat capacity for the whole planet of about 5.97x10^27 J/K (x10^34 erg/K). And since the coefficient of thermal expansion is about 3x10^-5 per Kelvin, that means it takes about 5.97x10^27 J of energy, to get the earth to expand by about 0.003% (roughly 200 meters), over the heat transfer time scale, about 100,000,000 years (which comes out to about 0.2 mm/year).

The most powerful solar flares & CME's we know of reach total energies about 10^26 J, about a factor of 60 short of the energy required in the paragraph above. But that's the total energy of the event, and only a small fraction of that energy will ever make it to the earth, which is miniscule in size by comparison. It would be amazing indeed if the earth intercepted as much as 1% of the total energy. So, if we assume 100% efficiency in energy transport to the core, then the flare/CME energy would have to be about 6x10^29 J (x10^36 erg), roughly 6,000 times the highest recorded energies. Now that would certainly qualify (or so it seems) as one of the proposed "solar tornado" events.

But since when does anything ever transfer energy with 100% efficiency? Energy loss at the magnetosphere bowshock, and in driving ionospheric & telluric currents will suck a lot of energy out of the flare event, aside from the fact that most of the flare energy will be lost in just flowing around the earth's magnetic field. The real efficiency will be closer to 1% than 100%, but let's pretend it's 10%, just to give all benefit of the doubt. That means the total energy has to be a factor of 10 greater still, or about 6x10^30 J (x10^37 erg), or about 60,000 times stronger than any known solar event.

Aere there such flares in nature? Indeed there are. The top energies for flare events in X-ray binary stars can be as high as 10^42 erg, well in excess of the energy we wind up looking for. But do we expect to see such things from the sun? The X-ray flares in these binary systems are powered by accretion disks, which don't exist on the sun. More mundane X-ray flares, such as on flare stars or T-Tauri stars are about 10^36 erg, just at the threshold of the energy we are looking for. But these are stars that have deep convection zones, and are still highly variable (and quite young in the case of T-Tauri stars). The real question is, do we expect to see flares of such energy from the sun?

The short answer is "no". Now, in the "first cornerstone" of the ASM webpage we find this: "There exists a larger and more forceful form of solar storm than we have ever witnessed in recorded history. These events, for lack of a better term, I will call Solar Typhoons. It is my belief, based upon historical evidence, myth, and my current research into Solar-Terrestrial interaction, that these occur on very long and regular cycles, perhaps in the thousands of years.

We are not privy to the details of this research, so we don't know what the historical and/or physical evidence is alleged to be. But we can examine our own understanding of stellar/solar structure & evolution, and figure out if we expect such an event to occur on any time scale. Theory tells us that the strength of flare events is tied to the relative depth of the convective zone. This is why small, red dwarf stars, can host flare events of energy comparable to solar events, and even stronger. Because their convective zones can extend all the way to the deep core. But the solar convective zone extends only about 1/4 of the way down from the photosphere. Since the sun is in pretty fair thermal & dynamic equilibrium, we don't expect this state of convective affairs to change drastically until later stages of solar evolution, maybe 4-5 billion years from now. That means we don't expect flare events like this for a few billion years.

So, we look at the big picture, and the fundamental premise of the solar typhoon hypothesis: "High Energy Geomagnetic Disruption and Earth Core Induction Heating as a Triggering Factor in Massive Earth Crust Displacement"

The evidence, along with some "back of the envelope" math & physics, indicates to me the following: (1) Geomagnetic disruptions of sufficiently high energy are highly improbable, if not impossible. (2) An inductive reaction of the earth's core is highly improbable, if not impossible. (3) Even if earth core induction were possible, the effect would be high current flow, and not heating. (4) The characteristic time scale for heat transfer in earth's deep interior implies about 100,000,000 years as a minimum time scale for any continental motion, even if all other aspects of the hypothesis are allowed to be true. (5) The maximum imaginable displacement, even if all criticisms are ignored, and maximum flare energy transfer is allowed, amounts to about a 1-Kelvin temperature change and resultant 0.001% (fractional 10^-5) radial expansion & continental motion.

This does not bode well for the hypothesis, but the news can be even worse. The final cornerstone tells us, without being overly specific about details, "When the Earth expands due to increased core temperature, seismic shock waves emanate from the increased mantle turbulence. Increased heat coupled with the shock waves act as a jackhammer that breaks up the crystalline structure of the Moho.

The energy required to accomplish this prose embellished event is staggering, granting the wild assumption that it is possible at all, considering the extreme pressure even as high as the Moho (the base of the earth's crust, basically). Crystal state is a function of pressure, so even if the Moho crystal state is broken up, itself an amazing event, it would at once re-crystalize simply due to pressure.

My guess is that, to accomplish all of this, the rise in temperature for the earth's interior would have to be anything from 100 to 1000 Kelvins. That's 10^36 to 10^37 ergs of input energy, which would require an event unprecedented in solar type stars (aside from melting the surace altogether at the high end temperatures).

Finally, consider that the first basic premise is the author's "belief" that some class of never before observed event might happen, and we see that the whole thing is too improbable to seriously consider.

long winded, but sometimes I just get going and can't stop.

Diogenes
2002-May-23, 03:20 PM
Hey, you gotta give ASM credit for a couple of big brass ones.. Hangin' em out to dry like that, on a bb teeming with real astrophysicists and such.