It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by expert999
ok and how long does it take for the poles to switch. and what caused it to start? or has it always been shifting?
Originally posted by expert999
the ocean floor, I would find a spot or two where my north-seeking compass would point south... ?
Originally posted by horten229v3
exposing us to Solar Flares, massive radiation, and many other dangerous effects due to the loss of the magnetic protection the earth offers.
expert
ok and how long does it take for the poles to switch. and what caused it to start?
or has it always been shifting?
There have been multiple polar shifts while man was around. It didn't destroy anyone
Does the magnetic field drop to zero gauss? Dire predictions follow upon the heels of this theory. Electronic devices would all be at risk: there may be damage to, or complete loss of, all near-earth-orbiting satellites and possibly the space station itself. Effects on life forms could range from migrating birds losing their sense of direction to immune system decline and even widespread die-off from radiation-induced cancers.
Losing its protective magnetic envelope, the atmosphere would expand and become thinner, possibly leading to altitude sickness near sea level. No longer filtered out, deadly cosmic rays would kill most if, not all, living creatures on the surface. Only those living in deep caves would be safe. This scenario has prompted some to build underground bunkers in hopes of surviving.
Countering this frightening vision, NASA predicts that, rather than declining to zero gauss, the magnetic field would become disordered. Thus we might for short time have more than one north and south pole on the planet. This official scientific stance says that the magnetosphere which shields us from cosmic radiation would not entirely disappear either. Thus, while communications would be erratic and perhaps at times completely inactivated, humans would find ways to survive. However, there are dissenters in the ranks, pointing to the vast South Atlantic magnetic anomaly and radiation damage to satellites over that region attributed to weakening of the protective magnetosphere
The disorderly-flip theory is supported by evidence from geology that in past reversals the decline was not total. Lava flows that solidified at Steen's Mountain during a lengthy reversal process show that the magnetic poles wandered across the equator three times. Though strength of the field was reduced to about 20% of maximum, there is no record that it fell to zero gauss during that transitional period
This data may be useful in helping inventors and researchers test the tolerance of Zero-point technologies, magnetic motors and other new generation systems in adverse situations. As we may have to live through ongoing magnetic disturbance for a long time, we will need to know whether the new systems will be robust under conditions of planetary pole reversal
There have been multiple polar shifts while man was around. It didn't destroy anyone.
The record doesn't go back to the begining of time, but the shifts are there from the start of the record. The record doesn't go back to the begining because of continental drift.
I have no idea. I don't think anyone does. That doesn't alter the evidence that shows that it does happen.
I think that the first pole shifts may date back to the formation of the magnetic field. Nothing has really had an effect on it so far, and thus there would be no reason for a spontaneous shift to occur and start a cycle. However, measurement is only accurate up until 160 million years, so this cannot be scientifically verified. Proof of the pole shifts is found in the magnetic "strips" found all over the sea floor which was mentioned before.
Earth's magnetic field comes from this ocean of iron, which is an electrically conducting fluid in constant motion. Sitting atop the hot inner core, the liquid outer core seethes and roils like water in a pan on a hot stove. The outer core also has "hurricanes"--whirlpools powered by the Coriolis forces of Earth's rotation. These complex motions generate our planet's magnetism through a process called the dynamo effect.
Earth's magnetic field is changing in other ways, too: Compass needles in Africa, for instance, are drifting about 1 degree per decade. And globally the magnetic field has weakened 10% since the 19th century.
The young-Earth argument: the dipole component of the magnetic field has decreased slightly over the time that it has been measured. Assuming the generally accepted "dynamo theory" for the existence of the Earth's magnetic field is wrong, the mechanism might instead be an initially created field which has been losing strength ever since the creation event. An exponential fit (assuming a half-life of 1400 years on 130 years' worth of measurements) yields an impossibly high magnetic field even 8000 years ago, therefore the Earth must be young. The main proponent of this argument was Thomas Barnes.
There are several things wrong with this "dating" mechanism. It's hard to just list them all. The primary four are:
1.) While there is no complete model to the geodynamo (certain key properties of the core are unknown), there are reasonable starts and there are no good reasons for rejecting such an entity out of hand. If it is possible for energy to be added to the field, then the extrapolation is useless.
2.)There is overwhelming evidence that the magnetic field has reversed itself, rendering any unidirectional extrapolation on field strength useless. Even some young-Earthers admit to that these days -- e.g., Humphreys (1988) .
3.)Much of the energy in the field is probably locked in toroidal fields that are not even visible external to the core. This means that the extrapolation rests on the assumption that fluctuations in the observable portion of the field accurately represent fluctuations in its total energy.
4.)Barnes' extrapolation completely ignores the nondipole component of the field. Even if we grant that it is permissible to ignore portions of the field that are internal to the core, Barnes' extrapolation also ignores portions of the field which are visible and instead rests on extrapolation of a theoretical entity.
Barnes employs an obsolete model of the earth's interior. Today, no one doing serious work on the earth's magnetic field envisions its source as a free electrical current in a spherical conductor (the earth's core) undergoing simple decay. Elsasser's dynamo theory is the only theory today which has survived.
They've also learned what happens during a magnetic flip. Reversals take a few thousand years to complete, and during that time--contrary to popular belief--the magnetic field does not vanish. "It just gets more complicated," says Glatzmaier. Magnetic lines of force near Earth's surface become twisted and tangled, and magnetic poles pop up in unaccustomed places. A south magnetic pole might emerge over Africa, for instance, or a north pole over Tahiti. Weird. But it's still a planetary magnetic field, and it still protects us from space radiation and solar storms.
Originally posted by expert999
how do you know it has always been something that happens?
Originally posted by expert999
well the weakening of the ozone is better explained by the burning of CFCs and whenever a volcanoe erupts it lets off gases that burns holes in the ozone.
I dont feel like readin back to see what proof you have for evolution or the moon coming from something other than the creator.
tell me one thing that can help prove evolution, we will take this step by step.
Originally posted by expert999
tell me one thing that can help prove evolution, we will take this step by step.