Magnetic Pole Flip May Devistate the Earth

Originally posted by Byrd
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 constantly drifting. There's day-to-day measures of where they are, and they drift several hundred miles) there is NO shifting of mass anywhere.

Byrd I'm not saying ice is magnetic, neither was Noone. A magnetic shift does indeed occur periodically, that is generally well known, but the drifting that you are referring to is not the same concept as shifting, your talking about declination. Let take a polar shift and a magnetic shift as two seperate processes here for a moment, and propose that a polar shift is causual to a magnetic shift. Antartic Ice builds to a 'maturity' of mass over a period of several thousand years, causes the new point of greatest mass to rotate outward to the point of greatest spin, the old but residually magnetic poles are shifted out and gradually the new poles build up a magnetic field in their new positions at the dipoles Created from earth's core. This would explain residual magnetisim in oddball areas like bermuda or Kimberley in South Africa . Scientists aren't too awfully keen to explain these areas of localized magnetic anamolies, I have seen explinations ranging from ore deposits to topography, and have even seen frequently 'deposited' fulgurites as possible causes and even natural gas hydrates...

Originally posted by Byrd
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. 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...

As far as the spinning ball experiment, if that spinning ball gradually added mass to one or both of it's 'poles' over a period of time, eventually point of greatest mass will shift to the point of greatest spin, I promise. Centrifugal force, or Centrifical, I don't remember which at the moment. Same concept is applied when you go to get your tires balanced, Basic Newton stuff there man. Yes a different mechanism, same rotational susceptibility though. Obviously things in motion tend to stay in motion, however you can't simply ignore one law of physics to imply another.

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

Mass extinctions, mass spurts in evolution and propogation, species relocations, anamolous topographies, globalized flooding. Even in man's recorded history there is evidence, Joshua (I think) as well as Egyptian records stating north becomes south amidst great calamities. Antartic tropical fossils and polar oil fields... There is more than one egg in that dozen.

Got a source for that?

Ah byrd you should know me better than that by now.. Of course I have sources :-)
Very interesting read here (Source includes a bit about the quick frozen animals and vegetation)...

www.world-mysteries.com...
"In a polar region there is a continual deposition of ice, which is not symmetrically distributed about the pole. The earth's rotation acts on these asymmetrically deposited masses [of ice], and produces centrifugal momentum that is transmitted to the rigid crust of the earth. The constantly increasing centrifugal momentum produced in this way will, when it has reached a certain point, produce a movement of the earth's crust over the rest of the earth's body, and this will displace the polar regions toward the equator."
Albert Einstein From The Path of the Pole by Charles Hapgood...

In a paper published in the July 25th issue of Science, the Caltech group reports that this evolutionary burst coincides with another apparently unique event in earth history--a 90-degree change in the direction of Earth's spin axis relative to the continents. Dr. Joseph Kirschvink, a geologist at Caltech and lead author of the study, speculates that a major reorganization of tectonic plates during latest Precambrian time changed the balance of mass within the Earth, triggering the reorientation. Thus, the regions that were previously at the north and south poles were relocated to the equator, and two antipodal points near the equator became the new poles.

This is another really good but lengthy MUST READ I think you would enjoy Byrd...

www.habtheory.com...
Every continent contains many groove marks of prehistoric ice ages. The slithering movements of towering glaciers have scoured the rocks over which they flowed, leaving a permanent record from which we can reconstruct their travels. And the groovings, all radiating from the center of the glacial areas, dis close the location of the former North and South Pole areas, corresponding in size to the areas now contained within the Arctic and Antarctic Circles. ...

Remember the Frozen Mammoth in Siberia, the nearly thirty pounds of grass they found in it's stomach?

From the same source..
Nine genera of grasses were found and help us to establish the climatic conditions under which the animal lived. If the grasses were arctic grasses, the mammoth must have lived in an arctic climate. If the grasses were tropical, a tropical climate would be indicated. This problem was submitted to the Smithsonian Institute. Mr. C. V. Morton, Curator, Division of Ferns, Department of Botany, advises that all of the grasses are now found in temperate climates, none in tropical climates, and four out of the nine are found as far north as the Arctic Circle....
Whether the grasses could have grown in a tropical climate, and survived after having been moved to temperate and frigid climates, is not ascertainable. The presence of rhinoceroses, however, indicates that the climate had been tropical.

Originally posted by twitchy
As far as the spinning ball experiment, if that spinning ball gradually added mass to one or both of it's 'poles' over a period of time, eventually point of greatest mass will shift to the point of greatest spin, I promise. Centrifugal force, or Centrifical, I don't remember which at the moment. Same concept is applied when you go to get your tires balanced, Basic Newton stuff there man. Yes a different mechanism, same rotational susceptibility though. Obviously things in motion tend to stay in motion, however you can't simply ignore one law of physics to imply another.

Are you referring to the ice buildup as the mass that causes the shift? If so there is a fundamental problem with that... (The Einstein thing someone reference in another thread)...

The problem is, what is now the south polar region hasn't always been the south polar region. In fact at one time, both africa and north america (or what is now those 2 continents) were in the same place that antartica is now. So you would never have enough mass build up to do anything.

With respect to north polar ice, it isn't fixed to anything, so it is free to drift about as it sees fit, so it won't cause any earthquakes if it moves.

Osiris

Just FYI, this link is helpful to visualize what I'm talking about...

www.ucmp.berkeley.edu...

So honestly, I don't think the ice mass thing holds any water (pardon the pun LOL)

Originally posted by otlg27
The problem is, what is now the south polar region hasn't always been the south polar region. In fact at one time, both africa and north america (or what is now those 2 continents) were in the same place that antartica is now. So you would never have enough mass build up to do anything.

Problem? You just pretty much summed up the geographical evidence for polar shifting. lol Read through some of the sources I quoted or do a google search on polar shifting. If the antartic ice mass is responsible for a cyclic polar shift, then of course "both africa and north america (or what is now those 2 continents) were in the same place that antartica is now." Heck man, that isnt a problem, it is evidence in SUPPORT of polar shifting.

Originally posted by twitchy

Originally posted by otlg27
The problem is, what is now the south polar region hasn't always been the south polar region. In fact at one time, both africa and north america (or what is now those 2 continents) were in the same place that antartica is now. So you would never have enough mass build up to do anything.

Problem? You just pretty much summed up the geographical evidence for polar shifting. lol Read through some of the sources I quoted or do a google search on polar shifting. If the antartic ice mass is responsible for a cyclic polar shift, then of course "both africa and north america (or what is now those 2 continents) were in the same place that antartica is now." Heck man, that isnt a problem, it is evidence in SUPPORT of polar shifting.

No you totally missed the point.. They didn't move rapidly one day.. they drifted over millions of years.. Maybe I'm not sure your definition of polar shifting.. if you are talking about it taking 100's of millions of years then I guess we agree.. if you are talking about anything sudden, my facts are compeltely against it..

Osiris

Well don't read the sources, but yes I'm saying it is a relatively sudden and cataclysmic process. You are talking about continental drifting, I'm talking about cyclic polar shifting. If I am going to debate with you, that is well adn good, but make sure you understand what I'm talking about here, as I hate arguing, but I love debating.
Try this one, www.habtheory.com...
or dig around a bit, www.google.com...

Originally posted by twitchy
Well don't read the sources, but yes I'm saying it is a relatively sudden and cataclysmic process. You are talking about continental drifting, I'm talking about cyclic polar shifting. If I am going to debate with you, that is well adn good, but make sure you understand what I'm talking about here, as I hate arguing, but I love debating.
Try this one, www.habtheory.com...
or dig around a bit, www.google.com...

Twitchy:

I'll read your links later (it's late and my comprehension will be zero, and I don't want to short change your ideas). Having said that, let me put the magnetic debate to bed first ROFL... I can only debate so much at once

Osiris

Originally posted by otlg27

Ok I'm picking through this Humphrey's paper.. and already I have found several major issues with the baseline assumptions...

I am afraid by picking through Humphrey's paper you and byrd have spent a lot of time on nothings as I was simply using him as a reference to the current field strength of the earths magnetic field. While the other information is interesting much of it does not directly apply to this theory or this thread. Thanks for the analysis however. I have been unable to find any other sources that conflict with his estimation of the current field strength of the Earth's magnetic field. If you find any let me know.

As such if that is your source for the 'strength' of the earth's magnetic fields I would recommend tossing it out and finding an alternate source. This isn't to say the number is necessarily wrong (I'm far too lazy to research the correct value). However, the source is very seriously flawed, and logically, the number must also be view with a great deal of skepticism.

I agree the sources hypothesis is a difficult one to prove but the math used to calculate the Earth's magnetic field from currently available data should not be hard for someone of this persons aparent expertise and therefore this basic fact should prove quite sound since it is in the realm of the observable. Until I find a better source I will use this one for reference.

You need to do to math to determine if the earth's field is strong enough to interact with the plates (which are not entirely ferro-electric materials) enough to have any impact.

doing the math as you put it on this one is far too complex an issue for any one person to extrapolate. There are a wide variety of pressures that are even now exerting force to move the crustal plates. These various gravitational, thermal, and magnetic forces form a system even more complex than the weather system of our planet. Last time I checked the weather man was only getting it right a little over half the time and that is with observable data. It is a little premature to dismiss this theory based on some simple mass calculations that do not account for the various forces already at play in the tectonic system.

further complicating the math of these calculations would be the purely theoretical nature of the makup of the mantle and outer core that calculations would be performed on. The figures you use for the percentage of iron in the crust are for the percentage found in the outer crust not the inner crust and mantle nor for the outer core. It would be logical to assume that the closer you got to the earths gravitational center the higher the concentration of heavy metal like iron would be. The fact of the matter is that we do not have accurate first hand data on the composition of the interior of our planet and as such we can only guess as to the forces at work.

One final note on you calculations involing the mass of the earth and the crustal composition and magnetic potential; the portion of the crust that we are dealing with is that portion where the dipolar field has the most potential magnetic attraction/repulsion. The driving force of this theory is not the entire crust of the earth but that portion that is within several hundred miles of the magnetic pole. It is only in that portion of the crust that the polar alignment of the cooling mantle would be sufficiently oriented to create a magnetic engine. In place further from the pole the magnetic polarization would in large part cancel itself because its lines of force would be parallel to the magnetic field and broken by variations and cracks in the crust. Hence each section of crust would have a balancing attaction to counter the repulsion.

In a electric motor for point of thrust is where the opposing poles meet, Though there is an attaction across the entire field of the engine that attaction/repusion increases exponentially until the poles are perfectly opposing. The same should prove true with the earths magnetic interaction with its crust. The magnitude of the force exerted should increase exponentially until the polarized crust is exactly opposite the orientation of the magnetic field. At that point the force of the entire field is exerted on a very small area. I wish I had the aptitude to quantify that force, but alas I am not an electrical engineer. Perhaps there is one who frequents this board who could figure the potenial energy of the earth's magnetic field opposing a several thousand square mile area of magnetically polarized crust. I will keep up the search for more data to prove or disprove this theory. Thank you all for your contributions so far.

Joh says:

�Let me first thank you for your cogent input on this topic. I believe that to look for species die offs that correspond to magnetic flips is an excellent way to evaluate the theory. There is a problem in trying to correlate the two however. The problem is, as alluded to above, that should this theory prove correct the dating systems that we currently use to date the fossil record would be flawed if not completely incorrect.�

Why should that be the case? If I understand you correctly, you�re saying that using a well-established method to prove something means that the method is invalid. I am not sure I understand.

�The dating system used to estimate when the polar shifts happened should be fairly accurate��

Yes, I agree.

�� but the dating system for the flora and fauna of the fossil record relies on methods that are skewed if you allow for catastropic changes in the environment capable of laying down multiple layers of sediments in a short period of time.�

But why should we allow for that? By �catastrophic changes in the environment capable of laying down multiple layers of sediments in a short period of time�, I assume you mean a world-wide flood. But outside of biblical and similar stories (e.g., Gilgamesh, Popol Vuh) there is no evidence for any such flood.

I will admit that recent research has determined the existence of early agrarian cultures on the shore of a large fresh-water lake at depths of a hundred feet in what is now the Black Sea. Many paleo-anthropologists believe that the Mediterranean Sea, rising due to melting of the old Pleistocene glaciers, broke through what is now the Straits of Marmora and turned a large freshwater lake into the much larger Black Sea. This would certainly account for the many flood legends that have become a hallmark of the contemporary mythos. Also, the dispersal of such an agrarian society (which was probably quite advanced for its day, since most everyone else was still in the hunter-gatherer mode) correlates quite well with the time-frame determined for the beginning of the spread of the Indo-European proto-language, from which most languages in Europe and the Near East are derived.

But all that does is provide a basis for the common mythos of the area, including Genesis and Gilgamesh; it certainly does not provide any evidentiary basis for -- or against -- a geological basis of a species die-off ascorrelated with magnetic pole shifts.

�A new dating system would need to be developed that took into account these factors in order to correlate the species extictions with the polar flips.�

Well, if you want to postulate a world-wide flood, then it would certainly require that we re-look our various dating methodologies, from dendrochronology to carbon-14. But these methodologies seem to work in every other test we make of them, and they seem to cross-correlate (especially dendrochronology with late Carbon-14); and since we have no evidence other that various stories of a world-wide flood, why should we inject a questionable ir not outright non-existent event into an otherwise perfectly workable method � just to invalidate that methodology? This is against Occam�s Razor, as well as just plain common sense.

�I will point to the condition of the vast majority of the fossil record at this point to make a supporting argument. The fossil record is interesting in that many of its records show evidence of a catastrophe being involved in their creation. A large majority of animal fossils appear in jumbled piles of hardened remains and are rarely found as isolated remains as one might expect of the random death of a specimen.�

Not necessarily. As someone who has lived in the Desert Southwest for 26 years and an enthusiastic (although amateur) geologist, I can say with surety that all the fossils I have seen (including four different visits to DNM in Vernal, Utah and eight or ten visits to Petrified Forest National Monument near Holbrook, AZ) every fossil I see is emplaced in a way appropriate to basic river flow.

�FUrther the fact that most fossils show evidence of being encased in limestone and sediments could be indications of their formation is some kind of catastrophe allowing rapid burial in the sediments that became both their tomb and their preservation.�

Well it could, but it could also be indicative of sediment slowly (over a matter of months or a few years) covering the bones of the animal after it had died and been washed down stream. The sediment would often harden due to additional tons of sediment over it deposited over millennia, and then gradually eroded away., leaving the harder fossilized bones sticking out.

And besides, what else would you find fossilized bones encased in? Certainly not extrusive igneous rock like basalt! If dinosaur bones were encased in magmatic rock (and I'm sure many of them were, given the number of active volcanoes extant during the Mesolithic), the heat from the magma would deform the bones (especially the smaller ones and the feathers as well) in a way inconsistent with they way they're found now. Also, since basalt is harder than fossilized bone, any bones in any sort of magmatic matrix are themselves probably going to be powdered before the matrix is eroded.

And remember that a stream-bank is a good place for critters to die, since a dying animal needs water, too; and a drinking spot is a great place for a predator to lie in wait for its prey.

Joh, If I read you correctly (and my apologies if I don�t; please correct me) in order to correlate planetary catastrophism with magnetic pole shifts, you are asking us to:

(1) Accept that our existing dating methodologies such as C-14, which seem to be pretty accurate, are now invalid; and

(2) Accept that a giant flood or other catastrophe for which we have no evidence outside of religious accounts happened, which is what invalidates those dating methodologies in the first place.

Yet even if I were to arbitrarily cast out my (so far) tried-and-true dating system, can you come up with any dating system that does show any correlation between magnetic pole reversals and biological die-offs?

Because if you can't, then we don't have much choice but to stick with a methodology which works.

Jon,

Some problems you have missed in your post:

Originally posted by Johannmon
snip

You need to do to math to determine if the earth's field is strong enough to interact with the plates (which are not entirely ferro-electric materials) enough to have any impact.

doing the math as you put it on this one is far too complex an issue for any one person to extrapolate. There are a wide variety of pressures that are even now exerting force to move the crustal plates. These various gravitational, thermal, and magnetic forces form a system even more complex than the weather system of our planet. Last time I checked the weather man was only getting it right a little over half the time and that is with observable data. It is a little premature to dismiss this theory based on some simple mass calculations that do not account for the various forces already at play in the tectonic system.

Ok, well I won't argue with this because there is something else I can (and will) throw your way below that sort of moots the whole thing..

further complicating the math of these calculations would be the purely theoretical nature of the makup of the mantle and outer core that calculations would be performed on. The figures you use for the percentage of iron in the crust are for the percentage found in the outer crust not the inner crust and mantle nor for the outer core. It would be logical to assume that the closer you got to the earths gravitational center the higher the concentration of heavy metal like iron would be. The fact of the matter is that we do not have accurate first hand data on the composition of the interior of our planet and as such we can only guess as to the forces at work.

Well actually no, the composition of the internal crust and mantel don't matter. The reason is due to the temperatures present there. There is no megnetism at those temperatures. So the given %'s I used are probably relevant for the relevent portions of the crust. This is not a reason to throw out the numbers I worked out. I still maintain they are valid.

One final note on you calculations involing the mass of the earth and the crustal composition and magnetic potential; the portion of the crust that we are dealing with is that portion where the dipolar field has the most potential magnetic attraction/repulsion. The driving force of this theory is not the entire crust of the earth but that portion that is within several hundred miles of the magnetic pole. It is only in that portion of the crust that the polar alignment of the cooling mantle would be sufficiently oriented to create a magnetic engine. In place further from the pole the magnetic polarization would in large part cancel itself because its lines of force would be parallel to the magnetic field and broken by variations and cracks in the crust. Hence each section of crust would have a balancing attaction to counter the repulsion.

Well now you have a major burden of proof on your side. You must prove that overall the megnetic alignments of crustal materials in significantly more than a 50/50 mix. Otherwise, if the mix is 50/50 (as one would expect given the planetary history), you would have no effect. I was planning on touching on this the other night, but honestly, the math on the ammount of energy available made it irrelevant. However, if you want to throw out those numbers (which I really see no reason to do), then you must consider the alignment of crustal materials, and you must prove that they are significantly aligned one way or the other. I have never seen any evidence to suggest a predominant orientation. In which case a reversal would have no effect (50% S, 50% N nets out the same regardless of field orientation)

In a electric motor for point of thrust is where the opposing poles meet, Though there is an attaction across the entire field of the engine that attaction/repusion increases exponentially until the poles are perfectly opposing. The same should prove true with the earths magnetic interaction with its crust. The magnitude of the force exerted should increase exponentially until the polarized crust is exactly opposite the orientation of the magnetic field. At that point the force of the entire field is exerted on a very small area. I wish I had the aptitude to quantify that force, but alas I am not an electrical engineer. Perhaps there is one who frequents this board who could figure the potenial energy of the earth's magnetic field opposing a several thousand square mile area of magnetically polarized crust. I will keep up the search for more data to prove or disprove this theory. Thank you all for your contributions so far.

Well you are welcome for the contributions. I would urge you to not so quickly dismiss them however (as you seem to have done, if I misunderstood your post I apologize). The reality of the situation is, given the temperatures that are signifcant at any significant depth, the %s for crustal material I gave are more than accurate enough. I would say you would need to prove that those numbers aren't valid before going any further (again, this is an honest statement and not an attack).

Regards,

Osiris

Originally posted by Off_The_Street

Joh, If I read you correctly (and my apologies if I don�t; please correct me) in order to correlate planetary catastrophism with magnetic pole shifts, you are asking us to:

(1) Accept that our existing dating methodologies such as C-14, which seem to be pretty accurate, are now invalid; and

(2) Accept that a giant flood or other catastrophe for which we have no evidence outside of religious accounts happened, which is what invalidates those dating methodologies in the first place.

Yet even if I were to arbitrarily cast out my (so far) tried-and-true dating system, can you come up with any dating system that does show any correlation between magnetic pole reversals and biological die-offs?

Because if you can't, then we don't have much choice but to stick with a methodology which works.

I will respond in order as best I can. First let me concede that current dating methods for fossils and dating method for polar flips do not coincide to vast die offs. That being conceded let me take issue with your tried and true dating method.

You claim that C14 dating is an accurate measure of dating fossils. I find this statement interesting as you must be talking about fossils less than 100,000 years old since the half life of c14 is such that it becomes almost impossible to measurable accurately after about 50,000 years. (see this link for a little information on your tried and true method)This does not allow for very many polar flips in the fossil record you are talking about.

The fact of the matter is that even good radiometric dating has at its foundation two quite large and unproven assumptions. First it assumes the original amount of radiometric material in the sample and second it assumes that radioactive decay has always progressed at the rate that it does now.

The dating of our fossil record is largely done with evolution as its base assumption, a theory that I find difficult to develop sufficiently strong arguments for so as to overcome its weaknesses. lol Geologic formations are almost always dated by their fossil content which, assumes evolution. Yet, evolution is supposedly shown by the sequence of fossils. This is such a fine piece of circular logic that I can't seem to get around it. lol (I seem to be full of thes e puns today)

All that being said let me once again thank you for your input to this discussion and agree with your basic premise that current dating methods for the fossil record showing extinctions do not correspond to current dating methods for pole flips.

B) Now as to your second point that I am assuming a global flood. While I recognize ample evidence suggesting a global flood, ie massive liquefaction, unbroken layering of sediments, homogenous substrates and the like, this particular theory does not require a global flood, though it is one mechanism by which such could happen. It does require local flooding by tsunamis and tidal surges since these would certainly form should the crust of the earth shift in any dramatic fashion. The layering of the strata could be a result of large scale liquefaction from the vibrations set off by a crustal shift as observed in much smaller earthquakes in Japan and the LA area. Further the polar shift would age the earth tremendously by the uniformitarian clock since the changes it would bring about would take hudreds of thousands of years (conservatively) to happen slow steady pressures.

Is it then unreasonable to say that the chronology of the theory of uniformitarianism is not applicable to catastrophism? I think it is not.

Originally posted by otlg27

Well actually no, the composition of the internal crust and mantel don't matter. The reason is due to the temperatures present there. There is no megnetism at those temperatures. So the given %'s I used are probably relevant for the relevent portions of the crust. This is not a reason to throw out the numbers I worked out. I still maintain they are valid.

Let me agian thank you for the time you are investing in this little foray into unique geological theory. I in no way off hand dismiss your input. Since however I am propounding a theory I do attempt to find ways in which my hypothesis fits the available information. Please do not misconstrue this as a dismissal of your information or input. I argue from a point that I am not entirely convinced of but rather from one that I am avidly exploring for its possibilities.

All that being said let me continue the discussion of the composition of the crust. Modern science has not to my knowedge succeeded in boring to the depths at which the Curie point of iron is reached. Hence we are talking about a vast volume of planetary crust which we are guessing as to its composition. The magnetic field would operate on any significantly polarized portion of the crust since its influence extends well past the boundaries of even out atmosphere. The best indication that we have of the composition of the inner crust, the portion below our current drilling depth and above the Curie point comes from volcanic lava and basalt laid down on the sea floor.

Science has already shown that the sea floor basalt maintains a residual magnetism. Further if one can detect magnetic anomolies at the surface of the earth in places such as the anomoly noted in Colorado, the magnetic field generated by said anomolies must be quite large. The size of a magnetic field is one indication of its strength and potential energy. Many of these anomolies are detectable when airborn, thus indicating that the fields extend thousands of feet above the polarized material. This indicates, to me that the Earths crust is quite capable of creating and sustianing strong residual magnetic fields. I believe this evidence counter balances your composition argument though does not dismiss it.

Well now you have a major burden of proof on your side. You must prove that overall the megnetic alignments of crustal materials in significantly more than a 50/50 mix. Otherwise, if the mix is 50/50 (as one would expect given the planetary history), you would have no effect. I was planning on touching on this the other night, but honestly, the math on the ammount of energy available made it irrelevant. However, if you want to throw out those numbers (which I really see no reason to do), then you must consider the alignment of crustal materials, and you must prove that they are significantly aligned one way or the other. I have never seen any evidence to suggest a predominant orientation. In which case a reversal would have no effect (50% S, 50% N nets out the same regardless of field orientation)

Here I take you back to my original post. THe poles create a unique magnetic situation. It seems like I have said this a thousand times but for clarity I will make another attempt to explain it. The theory goes that as the crust cools, it cools to the alignment of the magnetic poles and takes on a residual magnetism. In most places on earth that orientation does not present a field polarity in the crust because of the orientation of the field in the crust. Near the poles, however, the NS poles of the magnetised material align in such a way as to present a unified field polarity upon which the polarity of the the earths field can act.(see illustation here as well as on my original post)



The only way this field would be cancelled by another is if that same portion of crust had been located at the opposite pole during another magnetic period. Crust formed in other locations besides the poles does not have sufficient orientation to interfere with either the polar oriented crust or the Earths field.

I would say you would need to prove that those numbers aren't valid before going any further (again, this is an honest statement and not an attack).

I believe the argument that there are residual fields in the crust, is sufficient proof that such fields are possible despite your composition and temperature arguments, though they certainly have validity in pinning down where in the crust these magnetic anomolies reside and hence have significance in this debate.

Joh says:

"I will respond in order as best I can. First let me concede that current dating methods for fossils and dating method for polar flips do not coincide to vast die offs. That being conceded let me take issue with your tried and true dating method."


�You claim that C14 dating is an accurate measure of dating fossils. I find this statement interesting as you must be talking about fossils less than 100,000 years old since the half life of c14 is such that it becomes almost impossible to measurable accurately after about 50,000 years.�

I agree; I should not have said dating fossils; after about 50 k years,C-14 doesn�t do well at all. And, of course, the accuracy of dendrochronology is even less.


�The fact of the matter is that even good radiometric dating has at its foundation two quite large and unproven assumptions. First it assumes the original amount of radiometric material in the sample and second it assumes that radioactive decay has always progressed at the rate that it does now.�

True. However, those assumptions, while not proven, seem to be borne out by what information about radiometric data (original amounts and the constancy of decay rates) we do have. In order to invalidate radiometric dating, we would have to introduce two additional assumptions, neither of which we have any evidence for.

In effect, we would be placing ourselves in the shoes of the geocentric theory proponents in the seventeenth century who had to come up with an increasingly complex and clumsy �celestial sphere� for every phenomenon discovered: Planets themselves, the apparent retrograde motion of Mars, the movement of the Moon through its cycles, the apparent precession of the Earth over a long term and, finally, the one phenomenon which brought the geocentric theory and its by-then-up-to-50-odd spheres crashing down: the observation of the four large Jovian satellites.

This is, of course, exactly what William of Ockham meant when he formulated his famous �razor� assertion in the 1300�s: If you have to postulate more and more unproven phenomena in order to make your hypothesis viable, it probably isn�t in the first place.

�The dating of our fossil record is largely done with evolution as its base assumption, a theory that I find difficult to develop sufficiently strong arguments for so as to overcome its weaknesses.�

First off � and I will repeat this until I am blue in the face � I am not a geologist. My wife and I took three junior college courses, one of which was an intro, the second a Geology of the Grand Canyon, and the third Field Geology. This means that I am not a geologist; I am just an amateur, with a lot more enthusiasm than knowledge!

I agree that evolution as originated by Charles Darwin was error-ridden; but it, like any other sound hypothesis, has evolved and grown in order to explain (or rationalize) additional data as it comes to light. Theres nothing wrong with this; the whole purpose of a theory is not to have people worship at its altar but to, in effect, alter it (I can do puns too, LOL) so that it continues to be the best explanation at that time for how this little piece of the Universe works.

Of course, if we have to keep on inventing more and more implausible happenstances to keep it afloat, the theory, like the phlogiston or geocentric theories, probably belongs in the Mesa Municipal Landfill. But most of the changes to the original theory or evolution seem to make it actually more simple and elegant (in the mathematical sense of the word) than complex and clumsy. The recent use of the four genetic markers used by botanists in places like Kew Gardens in London and Missouri Botanical Gardens in St. Louis to correlate the dates that two plants diverged is an excellent example of this.

� Geologic formations are almost always dated by their fossil content which, assumes evolution. Yet, evolution is supposedly shown by the sequence of fossils. This is such a fine piece of circular logic that I can't seem to get around it. lol (I seem to be full of these puns today)�

Sphere not, for I will attempt to enlighten us all. The only geological formations which are dated by their fossil content are those which have fossils in them, i.e., Cambrian or later sedimentary formations. Precambrian formations have no fossils we can be sure of, and I am not aware of any igneous or metamorphic formations which have recognizable fossils, due to the heat and/or pressure undergone by those rocks.

And even in the case of sedimentary (fossilaceous) formations are dated first by the principles of Charles Lyell (�under means older, usually�) and then by the fossils. So this means that while the type of fossils can help the geologist in determining the relative age of an inclusion such as a rill or dike, the Lyell approach is usually used instead.

I will try to respond to your second part later this evening; unfortunately work calls me away from a fascinating conversation.

By the way, please check your mail.

[edit on 4-1-2005 by Off_The_Street]

Jon,

I'm going to snip for brevity. Hopefully I don't snip something into being out of context.

Originally posted by Johannmon

All that being said let me continue the discussion of the composition of the crust. Modern science has not to my knowedge succeeded in boring to the depths at which the Curie point of iron is reached. Hence we are talking about a vast volume of planetary crust which we are guessing as to its composition. The magnetic field would operate on any significantly polarized portion of the crust since its influence extends well past the boundaries of even out atmosphere. The best indication that we have of the composition of the inner crust, the portion below our current drilling depth and above the Curie point comes from volcanic lava and basalt laid down on the sea floor.

Well no we haven't drilled that far, but we have drilled pretty far, additionally we have a very good idea based on the composition of matter that we have seen, and even the strength of the magnetic field limits certain percentages. You are ignoring the fact that even if I'm off by a factor of a billion, there still isn't enough energy available to do anything. A billion. The most I can be off with my crust composition is approximately 8x (I gave ~12%). That still leaves me with a factor of 125M (conservatively, I would have to do the math in much more detail, but I have erred on the side that 'favors' your theory in all my calculations, and I still can't get close to the energy required).

Science has already shown that the sea floor basalt maintains a residual magnetism. Further if one can detect magnetic anomolies at the surface of the earth in places such as the anomoly noted in Colorado, the magnetic field generated by said anomolies must be quite large.

Exactly my point about the alignment of materials in the crust and why your theory needs to prove alignment. We have KNOWN examples of mis-alignment. You need to prove that they are not representative of the VAST majority of materials or my error allowance goes way up again.

The size of a magnetic field is one indication of its strength and potential energy. Many of these anomolies are detectable when airborn, thus indicating that the fields extend thousands of feet above the polarized material. This indicates, to me that the Earths crust is quite capable of creating and sustianing strong residual magnetic fields. I believe this evidence counter balances your composition argument though does not dismiss it.

Precisely.. and this invalidates your diagram with neatly drawn arrows. When a ferroelectric material cools it retains it's orientation. If *by your own arguement* the field flips, then there are vast areas of the crust if one alignment, then other alignment, etc. Thereby NEGATING your neat little diagram, pretty badly.

Here I take you back to my original post. THe poles create a unique magnetic situation. It seems like I have said this a thousand times but for clarity I will make another attempt to explain it. The theory goes that as the crust cools, it cools to the alignment of the magnetic poles and takes on a residual magnetism. In most places on earth that orientation does not present a field polarity in the crust because of the orientation of the field in the crust. Near the poles, however, the NS poles of the magnetised material align in such a way as to present a unified field polarity upon which the polarity of the the earths field can act.(see illustation here as well as on my original post)

Well now we have another problem. Let's assume I give you this as fact (which by the way I don't). How big are the poles in relation to the general magnetic alignment of the rest of the crust... 10%, 20%, 30%.. pick a number.. all it means is the magnetic field of the earth has to be even stronger than my calculations used previously.

Again, let me state my foremost objection to this theory simply:

There does not exist sufficient energies in the magnetic field to affect the techtonics of the planet in any significant way, even in the event of a complete polarity reversal.

Until this can be disproven, I stand by the fact that everything else is irrelevant.

The only way this field would be cancelled by another is if that same portion of crust had been located at the opposite pole during another magnetic period. Crust formed in other locations besides the poles does not have sufficient orientation to interfere with either the polar oriented crust or the Earths field.

Please PROVE this statement. I have provided several proofs and citations with what I have presented so far. Honestly, you haven't done a good job of providing any counter-proofs. In *my* world, proof wins over intuition (which isn't to say my world is always right, but usually it works ok )

I believe the argument that there are residual fields in the crust, is sufficient proof that such fields are possible despite your composition and temperature arguments, though they certainly have validity in pinning down where in the crust these magnetic anomolies reside and hence have significance in this debate.

Jon, you've totally missed my point about the composition. I have no problem with their being residual fields in the crust. The questions YOU need to answer are:

1) Prove they are sufficiently aligned for a shift to have anything which to work against. (I doubt you'll be able to find any physics, geological, etc. evidence to support this).

2) Prove that (given a sufficient alignment), there is enough magnetically suspectable material, and a strong enough magnetic field to impart ANY noticable motion into the crustal material. I have presented direct evidence to contradict this, and given myself (conservatively) a factor of a BILLION as a margin or error (it's probably a lot higher than this, but I can't be remotely bothered to get into discussion of interial momentum right now as it's just not at all necessary).

Basically, the earth's magnetic field is AT LEAST 1 billion times too weak to even cause a large quake, let alone any major techtonic movement.

Osiris

Originally posted by Johannmon

Originally posted by E_T
...So with enough strong magnetic field of earth we wouldn't be using magnetic medias!

The earth's magnetic field is huge and powerful enough to deflect cosmic rays away from the entire planet. Just because you can create magentised items within this field does not lessen the strenghth of the overall field. The mangetar woudl erase all magnetic data because it is an outside field that would interact with the earths field causing the disruption. What also must be taken into account is the distance between the source of the Earths field and our magnetic storage devices. Computers within 40 feet of our most powerful magnetic fields operate just fine because of the distance. Surely the miles between the outer core and the crust serve as sufficient insulation as well.

Actually magnetic field intercepts only ionized/electrically charged particles, its atmosphere which has to take care of rest.


Your logic seems to change depending how it won't fit to your sayings... In case of magnetic recording medias all magnetic fields are external ones. There's no need for any "interaction" of two fields because if magnetic field is strong enough to affect ferromagnetic materials enough to cause torque it will always destroy all magnetic medias anyway!

And in case of earths magnetic field only way for it to deform crust would be if it had the power to cause big enough force to ferromagnetic material poor crust... and it doesn't even have power to destroy magnetic medias/cause forces to them even when those are much more ferromagnetic than earth's crust.


And try to sometime read how electric motors work, most common type is one which doesn't have any permanent magnets.
In those fast (I mean really many rotations per second) spinning magnetic field is used to cause electric current in rotor creating magnetic field around it. Interaction of these magnetic fields causes the rotation of rotor.

Now remember that induced current is proportional to speed which wire moves in magnetic field.
So for it to work rotation speed of magnetic field and rotor has to be different, because if they're same there won't be any torque because there isn't any speed difference between rotating field and rotor which leads to fact that there's nothing which would induce current to rotor.
It also means that if rotation speed of magnetic field is negligible/slow it doesn't induce much current to rotor (any conducting material) causing lack of its magnetic field and torque created by interaction of it and rotating field.
This is also clearly case with earth's magnetic field, if it would rotate fast enough to induce current to crust (leading to magnetic field and force between them) every conducting material would act as rotor... and lot of things created by human conduct electricity definitely much better than earth's crust.

if magnetic field is strong enough to affect ferromagnetic materials enough to cause torque it will always destroy all magnetic medias anyway!

Actually this is only true if you are close enough to the source of the field. Is the earth�s Magnetic field strong enough to generate torque at its source (the outer core)? Well lets consider this. The most powerful magnetic fields we are capable of producing are through EMP devices. These fields Extend maybe 10�s of miles from their source. Yet similar fields have been shown to be able to produce HP and torque capable of the propulsion of a several thousand ton aircraft carrier. Now you try to say that a magnetic field which is measurable from 10,000 miles away from its source does not have sufficient power to produce torque? I will concede that the magnetic field does not have the power to produce torque at the surface of the Earth but as noted earlier the potential energy of a field increases exponentially with proximity to the source of the field. I am certain that if you got anywhere near the source of the Earths magnetic field your storage media would be wiped clean in an instant, not to mention that they would be incinerated. Lol.

And try to sometime read how electric motors work, most common type is one which doesn't have any permanent magnets.

Did my verbage say they did? I was intending to talk about fields within a motor not about permanent magnets though the field interactions are the same in either case, just generated from different sources and processes.

In those fast (I mean really many rotations per second) spinning magnetic field is used to cause electric current in rotor creating magnetic field around it. Interaction of these magnetic fields causes the rotation of rotor.

Can you say apples to oranges. You are talking about a model of electric motor that does not fit the model of magnetic thrust in the crust. There is the model of an electric motor that does fit the model proposed it is the one described in the previous post. Even in your model of an electric motor however the field dynamics are the same. If you look at the field generated by your electric motor it produces thrust the same way as any other electric motor, by having same magnetic fields oppose each other.(or in the case of an attractive field motor opposite fields) In the case of a motor one field is always chasing the same or opposite pole around the circumference of the rotation. One field does not spin faster than the other as you suggest. If it did the attraction repulsion would be cancelled and the motor would simply swing like a pendulum. Instead one field chases the other constantly pushing it forward, hence thrust.

This is also clearly case with earth's magnetic field, if it would rotate fast enough to induce current to crust (leading to magnetic field and force between them) every conducting material would act as rotor... and lot of things created by human conduct electricity definitely much better than earth's crust.

No current to crust is required because that is not the model being used. The model being used is one of a permanent magnet being affected by a magnetic field hence your analogy is useless. No current to crust is required. I would ask that you try to apply what is said to the current model and not take analogies such as the electric motor out of the context of the theory being discussed. It just tends to garble up the conversation.

As a simple wide imaginative individual open to science and fact I must say "off the street' and 'twitchy' make some common sense to us that are not familiar with the scientific/engineering concepts/research are words not known to some of us. However, upon my fascination of the polar shift possibly affecting or related to magnetic fields only fascinates me more and the yearn to understand becomes stronger. I can only say that these are the people who have a understanding from a different view, and with that I can further my knowledge of understanding in a realistic view. They always say when do you stop learning?

[edit on 5-1-2005 by dsblueyes]

Well no we haven't drilled that far, but we have drilled pretty far, additionally we have a very good idea based on the composition of matter that we have seen, and even the strength of the magnetic field limits certain percentages.

We have drilled pretty far compared to what? The deepest bores that I am aware of are far short of 100 miles yet 100 miles does not even a scratch in the earths diameter. At least accept the ambiguity of your assumption based on such narrow data.

You are ignoring the fact that even if I'm off by a factor of a billion, there still isn't enough energy available to do anything. A billion. The most I can be off with my crust composition is approximately 8x (I gave ~12%). That still leaves me with a factor of 125M (conservatively, I would have to do the math in much more detail, but I have erred on the side that 'favors' your theory in all my calculations, and I still can't get close to the energy required).

Your calculations begin with the strength of the earths field at the surface of the earth, and are therefore flawed from the very start. The strength and potential energy of a magnetic field are a function of distance from the source of that field. Your calculations can easily be off by 1 billion if you fact in that your distance to magnetic field source is off by 100s of miles. See this site for the effect that a few inches makes when gauging small magnetic fields. link

Exactly my point about the alignment of materials in the crust and why your theory needs to prove alignment. We have KNOWN examples of mis-alignment. You need to prove that they are not representative of the VAST majority of materials or my error allowance goes way up again.

The theory states that polar shifts are the cause of these mis-alignments, hence the misalignments are a part of the support for the theory. There are hot and cold magnetic zones because those zones were once at the poles and thus became the type of magnetic anomaly that I am describing.

Precisely.. and this invalidates your diagram with neatly drawn arrows. When a ferroelectric material cools it retains it's orientation. If *by your own arguement* the field flips, then there are vast areas of the crust if one alignment, then other alignment, etc. Thereby NEGATING your neat little diagram, pretty badly.

Now I must admit I am getting annoyed because I have explained this until I feel my fingers are falling off from typing yet I am still unable to communicate the concept to you. ONLY the specially aligned material at the poles creates sufficient field orientation to create a point upon which the earth�s magnetic field can push. It is not balanced by the regular formation of magnetic lines because those lines are not vertical in the crust but horizontal. It is only the vertically aligned crust that creates a field of sufficient strength and density to overwhelm the natural tendency toward balancing of magnetic force. Let me say it one other way in hopes of helping you understand. The reason crust cooled in a polar position is unique is that its field is perpendicular to the normal magnetic orientation of crust formed in other places. Therefore its field is not negated by other residuals in the crust and provides the field of the Earth a point upon which to exert magnetic force in a polar flip.Until you acknowledge that you understand the principle I am conveying in the two diagrams I have drawn up I cannot continue further for you have not grasped the basic mechanism I am proposing.

There does not exist sufficient energies in the magnetic field to affect the techtonics of the planet in any significant way, even in the event of a complete polarity reversal.

Let me state that dismissal of this theory based on the calculation of the strength of the earth�s magnetic field on the surface of the earth shows a lack of understand of what is being proposed. Please review what I am proposing and then lets continue this discussion.

Please PROVE this statement. I have provided several proofs and citations with what I have presented so far. Honestly, you haven't done a good job of providing any counter-proofs.

my proofs have been in the form of logical argument. If a logical argument is not sufficient I do not know what is. There is not a great volume of material on this subject since it is a newly postulated theory. I have provided support where it is available and will continue to make a great effort to back what I propose with reason and fact, though in the theoretical realm the amount of reason used, especially in the early formation of a theory, is often greater than that of fact.

1) Prove they are sufficiently aligned for a shift to have anything which to work against. (I doubt you'll be able to find any physics, geological, etc. evidence to support this).

Here simple magnetic law suffices if you will take a moment to try to understand the diagrams I have drawn you will see the forces I am talk about. They are quite simple.(see above)

2) Prove that (given a sufficient alignment), there is enough magnetically suspectable material, and a strong enough magnetic field to impart ANY noticable motion into the crustal material. I have presented direct evidence to contradict this, and given myself (conservatively) a factor of a BILLION as a margin or error (it's probably a lot higher than this, but I can't be remotely bothered to get into discussion of interial momentum right now as it's just not at all necessary).

This is the calculation I would love to be able to make. I am looking for accurate ways to calculate the strength of the earths magnetic field as it relates to distance from the source, which by the way is still largely theoretical since there is not total agreement as to what causes the earths magnetic field. Once I have that equation or some reasonable approximation of that equation I then need to extrapolate at what depth in the crust the Curie point of the material is crossed, estimate the residual field strength of the amount of crust cooled over the period of a polar flip and then make a calculation of the amount of force that would generate. This calculation would provide data with which to evaluate this theory though there would still be other factors to take into consideration such as the effect of mass shifting at the poles and tectonic forces already pushing on the crust. Until we can approximate the base factors of the above calculation however you cannot dismiss nor authenticate this theory. That is not to say that there cannot be useful discussion of this matter for there most certainly can be but please do not assume that this theory is discounted until you have all the factors at least accounted for if not well defined.

I have made some additions to my previous diagram of magnetic alignments within the crust to help illustrate how a polarized magnetic anomoly would be formed in the crust at the poles.




The poles of the magnetic material have been noted. As you can see when a portion of crust is located at one of the poles the lines of polarity are perpendicular to the normal alignment and therefore create a unique magnetic field that is properly aligned to be a part of a magnetic engine. This condition does not occur at other places in the crust because the horizontally placed poles of the residual magnetism cancel each other and do not provide a single pole for the Earth's magnetic field to exert force upon.

Originally posted by Johannmon
You claim that C14 dating is an accurate measure of dating fossils. I find this statement interesting as you must be talking about fossils less than 100,000 years old since the half life of c14 is such that it becomes almost impossible to measurable accurately after about 50,000 years.

Quite correct. This is why C14 is NOT used to date any fossils. Ever. Mummies, yes, fossils, no.

There is radiometric dating done, but it's not Carbon dating (besides, rocks don't contain carbon -- therefore there's nothing to date.)

Radiometric dating is not the same as carbon dating.
www.talkorigins.org...

A very specific explaination of isochonic dating is here:
www.talkorigins.org...

So, when those fossils were dated, it wasn't by C14 at all. They're not that young.