Magnetic Pole Flip May Devistate the Earth

The topic of this thread is Magnetic Pole Catastrophism. I have open this thread to continue scientific discussion into the theory that was referenced in the op/ed by Val here.

The theory states that when the magnet pole flips the crust of the earth is shifted dramatically cause a world wide catastrophe that reshapes the geological features of the earth and causes dramatic climate change on a global scale. This crustal shift is driven by the dipolar field of the earth acting on magnetically aligned "new crust" at the poles.

New crust is the crust that has formed through the cooling of magma along the border between the outer core and the inner crust of our planet. It is magnetically aligned to the earths field and near the poles that alignment causes the dipolar ends to face the outer core. (see illustration below) Because the new crust is magnetically aligned with its dipolar end facing the center of the earth, it is strongly repulsed by the newly reversed magnetic field of the earth in a manner similar to an electric motor.



The potential energy of the Earths magnetic field is enormous. Its measurement is called the dipole magnetic moment The dipole magnetic moment of the earth today is 7.9 x 10 22nd joules per Tesla. A joule is what you get when you pass 1 amp through a 1 ohm of resistance. A Tesla is a little harder to explain because it is a measure of magnetic flux. Suffice it to say that it is a measure of the size/ strength of a magnetic field. In other words the power of the earth�s magnetic field is = to running 79,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 amps through an equal amount of ohms of resistance per Tesla.

This amount of magnetic energy acting on several thousand square miles of polarized crust causes the crust to shift dramatically on the liquid outer core changing the longitude of landmasses dramatically and in geological time very quickly. The associated stresses on the tectonic plates is a major contributor to the formation of mountain ranges and other crustal upheavals and collapses.

Each such event would be unique based upon how closely the new Pole with its opposite polarity aligns with the position of the old pole and how long the crust had been cooling under the old alignment. It is therefore possible to have Pole flips that have only small effects on the outer crust of the earth if the new pole is significantly offset from the old. Conversely it is possible to have a huge Earth shattering event where the crust shifts so violently that the face of the earth itself would be unrecognizable after the event, Canada becomes a subtropical zone.

Please see pages 4, 5, and 6 in the thread above for more detailed explanation of the science behind this event. I will gladly repost the information and links from this thread as the discussion warrants it. Further I would like to say that this is a theory in its formation for me. I have not found any sites that directly address the mechanisms of this theory though there is a plethora of good supporting and doubt casting materials available on the general subject of geology and magnetic fields. I say all of that to say this, I invite all those interested to participate in exploring, expanding, modifying or should it prove possible disproving this hypothesis.

Good lord... here we go again....

Magnetic pole flips do not happen instantly. Further more the poles have reversed in history with no evidence to support massive planetary tectonic upheaval...

But seeing as this has been discussed constantly on this forum, with the same evidence pointed to, over and over again, and yet this post comes up again, I guess there isn't much point to replying to this...

Osiris

yawn!! more boring "end of the world" garbage.

There is ample evidence in the geological record that the earth has suffered catastrophes. The wasteland of Siberia is one of the most glaring of these evidences. They are covered in hundreds and sometimes thousands of feet of a substance called muck. Muck is a homogeneous mix of minerals and organic material that really typifies its name. This muck has been discovered to overlay subtropical vegitation. There is no gradual transformation from one to the other instead what you find is tropical vegitation then muck and on top of the muck, which by the way covers 1/7 of the Earth's land mass, you have the siberian arctic growth. The muck is all frozen solid and shows. Futher animals have been found encased in the muck very well preserved showing evidence of quick freezing.

In addressing whether a pole shift happens suddenly or not we have only observed a pole shift in one other celestial body, the sun. the sun's dipolar field flips every 12 years. Modern science has observed this on countless occasions. The sun's cycle is regular and in geological time practically instantaneous. The theory I am purporting above does not require the field to instantly go from one alignment to the other. Instead when the flip is complete or mostly so is when the forces involved would be activated. So what you would see is a run up in activity as the pole flip progress culminating in a catastrophic event.

Let me lastly say once again that I intend this thread to be a scientific discussion of the merits of the theory. It is not a chicken little thread claiming the sky is falling nor is it meant as a scare tactic. It is meant as a forum to explore an alternative geological theory , its merits, and detractions. Please refrain from purely opinion based posts that add nothing to the discussion.

Originally posted by Johannmon

Let me lastly say once again that I intend this thread to be a scientific discussion of the merits of the theory. It is not a chicken little thread claiming the sky is falling nor is it meant as a scare tactic. It is meant as a forum to explore an alternative geological theory , its merits, and detractions. Please refrain from purely opinion based posts that add nothing to the discussion.

Very well. Then given that statement, I challenge to support your assumptions with respect to:

There is ample evidence in the geological record that the earth has suffered catastrophes. The wasteland of Siberia is one of the most glaring of these evidences. They are covered in hundreds and sometimes thousands of feet of a substance called muck. Muck is a homogeneous mix of minerals and organic material that really typifies its name. This muck has been discovered to overlay subtropical vegitation. There is no gradual transformation from one to the other instead what you find is tropical vegitation then muck and on top of the muck, which by the way covers 1/7 of the Earth's land mass, you have the siberian arctic growth. The muck is all frozen solid and shows. Futher animals have been found encased in the muck very well preserved showing evidence of quick freezing.

You claim this will be a scientific thread and yet the above post contains no citations, no specifics. No possible counter-causes examined. In short, it does not sound very scientific at all. If you wish to continue this discussion, then PLEASE provide something of value. I will be more than happy to rip it apart (please note that's not an insult, but you can bet your bottom dollar if you want to present this as science, I will review it as I used to review the papers of peers for publication).

Regards,

Osiris

Originally posted by otlg27
Good lord... here we go again....

Magnetic pole flips do not happen instantly. Further more the poles have reversed in history with no evidence to support massive planetary tectonic upheaval...

But seeing as this has been discussed constantly on this forum, with the same evidence pointed to, over and over again, and yet this post comes up again, I guess there isn't much point to replying to this...

Osiris

Actually the reversals can occur nearly instantly. Evidence of this was found in volcanic rock.

Indy:

NO THEY DON'T.. please show me where you found this information, and I'll show you where you've either misread something, or someone else has made a mistake.

Regards,

Osiris

Ok.... I hate to do this.. but you wanted science.. let's start with something simple.. the definition of a Joule:

A joule is what you get when you pass 1 amp through a 1 ohm of resistance.

WRONG.

A Joule is any of the following:

"One Joule is the energy expended when a force of one newton is applied over a displacement of one meter in the direction of the force. "

"A measure of the amount of energy delivered by one watt of power in one second, or 1 million watts of power in one microsecond. "

"One joule is the energy expended in 1 second by a current of 1 amp flowing through a resistance of 1 ohm. "

PLEASE NOTE IN THE LAST QUOTE.. "1 second". Also that's the worst definition, since the correct way to define it is: 1 Volt @ 1 Amp through 1 Ohm for 1 Second.. AKA 1 Watt (therefore in the effort of clarity I like the 1 watt definition) [edit comments] For some reason re-reading this isn't sounding right to me... if I'm not right on this I apologize, I just don't have time to dig out my old books right [end edit]
[edit AGAIN]
I thought so (just bothered to look it up).. 1 Volt @ 1 Amp = 1 Watt = 1 Joule = power dissipateed by 1 Amp @ 1 Ohm for 1 Second.. sorry..
[end edit]


Furthermore (now this is nitpicking) a joule isn't what you 'get', it's a measure. If you pass current through a resistor you get current out the other end and heat.

Now onto the Tesla.. actually it's not hard to define:

"The SI unit of magnetic flux (flow) density (magnetic induction). The magnetic flux density of a uniform field that produces a torque of 1 newton- meter on a plane current loop carrying 1 ampere and having projected area of 1 square meter on the plane perpendicular to the field. (T = N/A m) "

Having said that, where the hell do you get this gobbly goop from:

Suffice it to say that it is a measure of the size/ strength of a magnetic field. In other words the power of the earth�s magnetic field is = to running 79,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 amps through an equal amount of ohms of resistance per Tesla.

Suffice it to say nothing. Please cite every source you used for that number, or provide the calculations you used and the appropriate sources. Secondly (again minor nitpick) your sentence structure is horrid.

Osiris

[edit on 2-1-2005 by otlg27]

[edit on 2-1-2005 by otlg27]

[edit on 2-1-2005 by otlg27]

otlg

With all due respect...you're attitude is horrid.

Joh...

I'm glad you started a separate thread to discuss this topic specifically, and I will be watching it to learn. But I'm sorry that once again it appears some one (you) have tried to have a conversation about a topic they have interest in, and have devoted research time to, but meets with belittling by some one who does nothing but make demands and perform subjective grammar checks.



[edit on 1-2-2005 by Valhall]

Val:

I spoke with Jon privately via a U2U and told him I would review it as I would any scientific presentation. In my experience, that level of detail is required to ensure the results are valid.

I also stated in this thread I would review this as any paper my peers used to submit. Crap doesn't cut it in the scientific world.

Scientific presentations don't use phrases like 'suffice it to say' and then quote a huge number. No number is 'obvious' when presenting it. Jon indicated his desire to present the information in a scientific manner. I'm treating it as such.

If you think I'm being too hard on the writing or content, well I'm sorry, but if you want it to be taken seriously then I will review it seriously. If you want me to go 'hey great theory' and then ignore it, fine I'll do that to. Personally I thought Jon wanted the hard scrutiny and feedback.

Regards,

Osiris

Joh, I welcome your concept of a scientific discussion of the possible correlation between changes in the magnetic pole and any geophysical catastrophes that may have happened. Most people tend not to be scientific in their discussions, in that they do not provide citations, do any serious research into existing data, etc. It is good to know that you will avoid such errors; I will do my best to avoid them as well.

My belief is, however, that magnetic pole shifting has had little if any impact on the geophysical structure of the Earth, simply because we know exactly when magnetic pole shifts have occurred, and I am not aware of any geological evidence of any such catastrophe that occurred during those pole shifts.

We can tell from Raff and Mason�s work and later by Vine and Matthews just about when those pole reversals took place, simply by measuring the distance apart of the dipole changes on the Atlantic Ridge basalt. As you may be aware, the confirmation of seafloor spreading was supported by other observations made in 1965 and 1966. Key among them were ocean sediment samples analyzed by Lamont's Neil Opdyke. The samples were from vertical cores, 16 to 40 feet long, taken from the ocean floor in the South Pacific. The timing and pattern of magnetic reversals in Opdyke's core samples matched those determined from lava flows on land and from seafloor magnetic stripes.

So we can be pretty sure at what point the magnetic pole took place, and we can certainly tell, just by examining the fossil record, when a major die-off occurred. Of course, the most well-known one is the K-T boundary, where a thin layer or Iridium found worldwide is between typical saurian fossils of the Cretaceous and almost nothing of any size in the subsequent Cenozoic/Paleocene era. This tied in pretty well geologically with both the Chicxulub Comet Strike in what is now Yucatan and the spread of the Deccan Traps in India.

Yet there is no die-off of any kind whatsoever when geologists examine geological strata at the time of any of the magnetic pole reversals. Of course, the fossil record, even as recently as the Pliocene or Pleistocene, is not complete enough for us to say with any certainty that no species died off. Quite possibly, large number of birds and insects whose migration patterns depend on magnetic-field navigation could have become disoriented and perished; maybe to occasional species or sub-species extinction.

But there was certainly not a die-off as you�d find correlated to the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary or the Permian/Triassic shift.

If you have any such data which shows a correlation, I�m sure we�d all like to see it, but absent any such evidence, I cannot see magnetic polar shifts causing any sort of geophysical or biological �catastrophes�.

I�m looking forward to your reply.

One angle I found interesting was the 'maturation' of the anartic ice mass as presented by Richard Noone, although he made the mistake of trying to predict a specific date, he had a lot of information that I found intriguing. It is a pretty simple matter of physics really that make me think that there is something to the polar shift theories, the point of greatest mass moves to
the point of greatest spin. As the anartic ice mass builds over time, it gains mass until it shoots off to the point of greatest rotation, or in this case the equator. If a large earthquake can cause the planet to 'wobble', it is not a wholly unattenable theory to suggest that a massive ice build up would not have some effect on rotation. Noone actually went so far as to assert that the wobble of the planetary axis (the reason for the seasons) is caused by the anartic ice mass. Like it or not, there is alot of evidence to support catastrophism in the Earth's history, geological anomolies abound and it's not just the earth's magnetic field that would cause quick frozen fruit tropical vegetation in sub-artic reigons. Rather than making fun of the original poster here, let's discuss the idea with a little respect due to the theory. Einstien was no imbecile, and he supported this theory as well.

Originally posted by Johannmon
The theory states that when the magnet pole flips the crust of the earth is shifted dramatically cause a world wide catastrophe that reshapes the geological features of the earth and causes dramatic climate change on a global scale. This crustal shift is driven by the dipolar field of the earth acting on magnetically aligned "new crust" at the poles.

New crust is the crust that has formed through the cooling of magma along the border between the outer core and the inner crust of our planet. It is magnetically aligned to the earths field and near the poles that alignment causes the dipolar ends to face the outer core. (see illustration below) Because the new crust is magnetically aligned with its dipolar end facing the center of the earth, it is strongly repulsed by the newly reversed magnetic field of the earth in a manner similar to an electric motor.

One big problem, that layer between core and mantle (or even mantle) has temperature way above point where ferromagnetic materials loose their ferromagnetic properties, neither talking about that in those temperatures materials can't even have any magnetism to loose.
(if you heat permanent magnet to certain point which depends on material it looses its magnetism)


Name of that temperature is Curie point/temperature.
Here's table showing those temperatures for ferromagnetic materials:
en.wikipedia.org...

That is also what makes it possible to detect direction of past magnetic field from seafloor basalt because when material cools under its Curie point it retains direction of magnetic field for which it was exposed at the time of cooling.

Now onto the Tesla.. actually it's not hard to define:

"The SI unit of magnetic flux (flow) density (magnetic induction). The magnetic flux density of a uniform field that produces a torque of 1 newton- meter on a plane current loop carrying 1 ampere and having projected area of 1 square meter on the plane perpendicular to the field. (T = N/A m) "

Since this is a public forum I am making an attempt to keep the language and terminology as simple as possible so as to facilitate understanding in a majority of readers. While I welcome your critique I would ask that you take into account the forum in which it is being posted. It is not my intention to writ e a scientific paper on this subject but rather to present a theory for discussion and analysis. Hence since most people reading this have no better understanding of a tesla after reading your scientific description than before it I simply refered to it in laymens terms. Same goes for the joule. I was trying to convey the power of the field, not for calulation but instead to give a sense of its magnitude.

Having said that, where the hell do you get this gobbly goop from:

link

your sentence structure is horrid.

My sentence structure is that of an orator not a writter, hence I combine many layered ideas into single thoughts and sentences. I admit that without the nuances of vocal inflection it can take a bit to follow. The plus side to that is that you must put thought into the reading and hence be engaged with the text to comprehend it.

Here is one link to muck, the siberian tundra, frozen mammoths etc link

[edit on 3-1-2005 by Johannmon]

Originally posted by twitchy
One angle I found interesting was the 'maturation' of the anartic ice mass as presented by Richard Noone, although he made the mistake of trying to predict a specific date, he had a lot of information that I found intriguing. It is a pretty simple matter of physics really that make me think that there is something to the polar shift theories, the point of greatest mass moves to
the point of greatest spin.

This is all well and good, but Noone rather ignores the fact that it's a Magnetic shift, and ice isn't magnetic. Furthermore, when our poles drift (and they are constantl drifting. There's day-to-day measures of where they are, and they drift several hundred miles) there is NO shifting of mass anywhere.

As the anartic ice mass builds over time, it gains mass until it shoots off to the point of greatest rotation, or in this case the equator.

I think that if you do a "spinning ball with stuff on it" experiment, you'll find that as you spin the ball faster, it's the Stuff On The Axis Of Rotation that stays put. Stuff near the equator tends to slide off and slide around.

Large lumps of stuff at the axis of rotations still sit there. They might deform the planet, but not to the point where it goes anywhere.

If a large earthquake can cause the planet to 'wobble', it is not a wholly unattenable theory to suggest that a massive ice build up would not have some effect on rotation.

Very different mechanism, and the "wobble" is on the order of one inch. The earth's annual wobble is on the order of 15 feet, by the way.
en.wikipedia.org...

Like it or not, there is alot of evidence to support catastrophism in the Earth's history,

Scientists agree that some catastrophes did occur. But very few seem to be associated with fossil evidence of great die-offs.

cause quick frozen fruit tropical vegetation in sub-artic reigons.

Got a source for that?

(I'll address Humphreys separately)

[edit on 3-1-2005 by Byrd]

The way this topic is handled reminds me of the medieval practice of bringing up, "How many angels can sit on the head of a pin?"

This is pure speculation, like betting on horses.

All I can say, because I'm not educated in this field but I am interested in the outcome, is this:

The human race has survived ALL previous magnetic flips. I have no reason to believe humanity will not survive the next one.

Cheereo!

Originally posted by E_T

Name of that temperature is Curie point/temperature.
Here's table showing those temperatures for ferromagnetic materials:
en.wikipedia.org...

That is also what makes it possible to detect direction of past magnetic field from seafloor basalt because when material cools under its Curie point it retains direction of magnetic field for which it was exposed at the time of cooling.

This is an excellent point. The materials right on the border would continue to be too hot to hold magnetism but it is still plausible that in the time frame between polar flips that enough material has cooled that a suffient thickness is established to insulate it to below 1000 degrees (the curie point of iron). I might add that materials cooled slowly maintain a stonger impression of the magnetic field than those cooled quickly. What has also not been established is the effect of the magnetic field on hot crustal material as it crosses the curie point. In other words it may not be necessary for the the material to be liquid in order to obtain its magnetic properties when solidifying but only that the field be present at the time that the crust cools below its curie point. Hence the magnetised crust necessary for shifts is quite plausible though not right on the border between liquid and solid but a little farther in.

Let me at this point post some interesting information on magnetic anomolies in the crust.

There is a magnetic anomaly in the Denver Colorado area that if my hypothesis holds true could have been the north pole at one time. If the earths crust shifted from the pole to approximately Denver it would take Siberia from a temperate region to an arctic one.

link to anomaly

I have found further evidence supporting the orientation of magnetic materials in the crust to the earths magnetic field as they cool. This crustal cooling would be more pronounced in an arctic region where heat is dissipated more quickly than in warmer climates. Thus the build up of magnetically oriented material would be more pronounced.

link to magnetic alignment

Along these same lines of thought I have found a good map of magnetic anomalies. This map seems to show a correlation of anomalies on the other side of a globe or close to it. The anomaly in Colorado has a corresponding anomaly in the southern hemisphere almost on the other side of the world in Australia. Another observation I make concerning the map of the anomalies is how the northern ones especially, seem to line up along a line of longitude. To apply this observation to the current theory in discussion it could be interpreted to mean that a magnetic crustal shifts kinetic energy has been dissipated in a consistent manner during the history of these catastrophes. The out of place magnetic anomalies could indicate an extremely strong crustal shift or even an attractive shift after the initial repulsive shift.

link to map

Additionally a �huge� magnetic anomaly is located in lake Vostok which is pretty much in the center of Antarctica. While the lake is not on the magnetic South pole it is the deepest point of crustal access near the South pole and the Anomaly is on the South corner of the lake. This could be interpreted to be the edge of the Southern Polar magnetic anomaly.

link to Vostok

Originally posted by otlg27
Indy:

NO THEY DON'T.. please show me where you found this information, and I'll show you where you've either misread something, or someone else has made a mistake.

Magnetic flips can happen suddenly as displayed in the shifting of the dipolar alignment of the sun. Since we have never observed one here on Earth we have only suggestive evidence as to their time frame.

Further if this theory were to prove correct then current geological dating schemes are flawed in some of their assumptions. One of those flaws would be in dating rock according to its placement in the layers of sediment and rock strata. Such layering in catastrophism is created in part by the catastrophes purported by the theory rather than by long periods of annual layering. Hence during the time of a magnetic flip many layers would be laid down while the Earths magnetic field was still recovering from the catastrophic flip.

can this have any effect on moving plates that may cause earthquakes or even more recent have anything to do with a tsunami as this could seem more plausable than goverment conspiracies about underwater detonations and so on

Okay... Humphreys article:

I did read the Humphreys article you linked to, and.. well... it has a LOT of outright mistakes. That journal isn't "peer reviewed" and it's pointing to religious theories.

Why are we picky about "peer review"? Well, we all make mistakes and NOBODY can know everything in any one field of science. When we write a paper, it goes off to friends and colleagues before anyone else sees it and they give critiques before it goes to editors. When it hits a journal, they pass it along to their board of reviewers.

Even if the reviewers pass it as okay, when it gets published, EVERYBODY gets to see it and oh boy, do they comment on it. Some support it by pointing to other papers, and some will rip it to shreds.

Take a look at any academic journal and you'll see this in progress.

Humphreys' article never got that, and apparently nobody reviewed his math. This leaves him very vulnerable to criticism.


So.. Dr. Humphreys:

The first huge mistake is that "evolutionists" are all biologists and they don't know beans about planets or planetary development. How can this guy say he's credibly arguing against astronomical things by taking astronomy from a biological basis?


Secondly, I went off to see if I could find his original paper that cites his predictions of the magnetic force strengths of various planets. I don't see it anywhere; as far as I can tell (unless it was published in a creationist magazine) this was the first.

So let's doublecheck his figures... and then see if it predicts anything.

The first thing we should note about his equations is that he puts in a "god factor." In other words, if the predictions or measured value doesn't add up to what he predicted, his formula allows him to go in, come up with ANY number that then makes things fit, and calls it a "god factor."

Here's what he says directly:

I do not know from Scripture what proportion of the protons God aligned in each case. In the previous article I put an arbitrary factor, k, into the equations. This alignment factor represents what fraction' of the maximum field God chose.

The maximum value of k is one; the minimum is zero. Ordering by whole subgroups would give possible values of �, �, �, or 1. In the previous paper I assumed that k for the earth was �. I supported this choice by pointing out that it increases the molecular order with a minimum of perturbation from the normal alignment. But it is a subjective choice. In the absence of any better criterion, let us assume that k = 0.25 unless we find out otherwise.

Now... no non-Creationist scientist would be allowed this kind of "fudge factor."

You can see how it works in another paper of his:
www.icr.org...

In figure 2 (because the original data doesn't come out to be the age he wants -- his model of decay predicts the Earth's age at OVER 10,000 years), he adds a period of "dynamic decay" when God changed the rules of the universe for No Apparent Reason to make things fit a 6,000 year age.

He also uses Thomas Barnes' 1973 book, Origin and Destiny of the Earth's Magnetic Field, as a foundation. In fact, he's pretty much rehashing Barnes. Consequently, he hasn't addressed the problems with Barnes' theories: www.talkorigins.org...

(long as it is, you might want to read it anyway. Gives a good background.)

Measurements of the "decay of Earth's magnetic field" show that it hasn't changed much since 1935 (though it did change slightly before then.) Scientists say this is due to more sophisticated and more accurate measurements of the magnetic field. Creationists say it's because God stopped the rate of change.

Since the argument is for a Capricious Change (god factor can change whenever, there is no actual "prediction" available in their science. Modern physicists have mathematical models of what will happen in a poleshift. Creation scientists can't model that, without a constant adjustment of the "god factor" to come up with the same models that the rest of the scientists have.

Physicist Tim Thompson levels an additional criticism at Humphrey:

Humphreys had already postulated this idea, when he found support from a paper by Coe & Prevot in 1989 [25], which showed evidence of a rapid change in the angle of the dipole moment of the Earth's magnetic field during the cooling time of a lava flow. Coe & Prevot have expanded on the observations and theory since then [26, 27a] (and so has Humphreys [28]), and the effect certainly appears to be real, or at least credible. Humphreys has interpreted these results as an implication that all field reversals are very rapid, and this allows him to concentrate all of them into the single year of the Genesis Flood. However, one must remember that the results reported by Coe & Prevot include only a few out of hundreds or thousands of examples of field reversal measurements. The vast majority of the known examples would have required the entire reversal to take place while the lava flows were still hotter than the Curie temperature, or worse yet, argue against rapid reversal by recording what appear to be the intermediate stages of a single reversal event. Finally, others have shown that the evident rapid reversals described by Coe & Prevot may be explained by processes not related directly to those in the Earth's core [27b], but rather by magnetic storm effects that may become significant at the surface of the Earth during a reversal, when the dipole field is relatively weak.

That last one is an important point: it says that scientists have models that show the "rapid reversals" may instead be magnetic storm effects during a slower reversal. The Creationist model simply isn't adequate for this unless you postulate God hopping in and twiddling with the lava flows thousands of times in a short period simply for the purpose of "confounding scientists."