It's already begun?The reverse of the Magnetic Poles.Sun and Earth.

Originally posted by Chamberf=6
reply to post by diamondsmith

 

It is not claimed that geomagnetic storm is a primary cause of any earthquake.

Nor does it say anything about earthquakes that cause the axis to slightly tilt or that this makes the poles reverse.

solar storm could be a trigger

reply to post by diamondsmith


Still how does it relate to the idea "that this makes the poles reverse." ??

Originally posted by Chamberf=6
reply to post by diamondsmith

 

Still how does it relate to the idea "that this makes the poles reverse." ??

They are too much interconnected to explain this,but it's real and true!!

reply to post by diamondsmith

They are too much interconnected to explain this,but it's real and true!!

It's true?

So now you are incorporating earthquakes as a cause for pole reversal in addition to solar pole reversal?

reply to post by diamondsmith


The Sun is more "fluid" than the Earth but due to its size, its magnetization does not run in synchronization across its whole mass.

At the Sun's equator, the magnetic fields have to travel significantly further than closer to the poles and, since they are traveling at similar speeds, it begins to lag behind the magnetic fields close to the poles.

This causes the "tearing" of the magnetic fields (actually it creates turbulent eddies which as they move away from their opposite pole, causes the magnetic field to jump to a new, closer or more powerful, opposite magnetic pole).

The exit and entrance points of these strong magnetic domains are the sunspots, the magnetism opens a "hole" in the brightly ionized surface, allowing us to have a glimpse deeper into the Sun. Because the light produced deeper in the Sun is less bright than the surface, the sunspots appear dark (in comparison).

At a particular point, the total magnetic field of the Sun reaches a critically instability and "flips around" to a new stable configuration. We interpret this new stable point as being a magnetic pole reversal.

Due to this magnetic effect being based on the physical rotation of the gaseous Sun, and the fact that the rotation speed is finite, we can expect regular Solar maxima and minima, on an approximate 11 year cycle (the actual cycle would be 22 years if we took into consideration the actual polarity of the magnetic fields).

We have been observing the Sun for at least 400 years and back in the 1800's Rudolf Wolf calculated the Sunspot cycles back to the 1700's. All those readings of Solar activity give us great confidence that our current understanding of the Solar cycle is good. There are also other cycles in Solar activity that are similarly well understood which enables us to say that the next Solar maximum in 2013 will not be particularly active.

Considering that the Sun reverses its magnetic field every 22 years, it does not appear that there is any link whatsoever between Solar and Terrestrial magnetic pole reversals.

The Earth's magnetic field is caused in the most part by the rotation of its molten iron core. It is significantly less massive, less active, slower and more viscous than the Sun and so magnetic field reversals take a long time and also proceed very slowly in human terms.

reply to post by Chamberf=6

incorporating earthquakes as a cause for pole reversal

NO,magnetic poles reversal could trigger earthquakes and earthquakes triggered by this could accelerate the magnetic poles reversal,and Sun's poles reversal could contribute to this in certain conditions given by the solar system magnetic state.

reply to post by diamondsmith

NO,magnetic pole reversal could trigger earthquakes and earthquakes triggered by this could accelerate the magnetic pole reversal,

Which is it?
Pole reversal first (cause) or second (effect)?

reply to post by Chamberf=6

Pole reversal first (cause) or second (effect)?

NO,is the Time effect!!

Originally posted by diamondsmith
reply to post by Chamberf=6

 

Pole reversal first (cause) or second (effect)?

NO,is the Time effect!!

Sorry.

That makes no sense to me whatsoever.

reply to post by Chamberf=6

That makes no sense to me whatsoever

I know,sorry.

reply to post by Chamberf=6

That makes no sense to me whatsoever

I know,sorry.

Originally posted by Chamberf=6

Originally posted by diamondsmith
reply to post by Chamberf=6

 

Pole reversal first (cause) or second (effect)?

NO,is the Time effect!!

Sorry.

That makes no sense to me whatsoever.

edit on 1/23/2012 by Chamberf=6 because: (no reason given)

He is probably referring to the Time Cube

reply to post by chr0naut

He is probably referring to the

Essential Question 1: What Are the Components of the Earth’s System? The Earth is a dynamic system, constantly changing as matter and energy are transferred among its different parts. It includes the following subsystems: the geosphere—the solid Earth including all the materials that comprise the crust, mantle, and core; the hydrosphere—all of the water of the Earth (oceans, rivers, lakes, groundwater, etc.), including glaciers and other frozen water; • • Background Content for Teachers the atmosphere—the envelope of gases that surround the Earth (oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, etc.); and the biosphere—the sum of all living matter on the Earth. The Earth, in turn, is but a subsystem of the solar system, the solar system a subsystem of the galaxy in which it is embedded, and that galaxy a subsystem of the universe. An advantage of systems thinking—whether of biological, mechanical, astronomical, or any other entity—is that one can isolate parts for study (or action) while keeping in mind that they are not entirely independent. In the case of the geosphere, movement of rigid tectonic plates (also called lithospheric plates) at the Earth’s surface atop a hotter and more ductile portion of the Earth’s interior is a fundamental consequence of the slow release of the Earth’s internal heat. At their margins, the interaction among these moving plates (which comprise the outer portion of the Earth including its surface) constantly changes and shapes the Earth. These changes are manifested in earthquakes and volcanoes that arise from such interaction. The earthquakes and volcanic eruptions associated with the Earth’s geosphere affect and even shape the environment (the hydrosphere, atmosphere, biosphere, and geosphere itself

source(www.enviroliteracy.org...

reply to post by diamondsmith


Why keep posting quotes from sources that have nothing to do with your OP or your other assertions (not to mention nothing to do with some of the posts you respond to)?

wait a sec..

the sun flips its pole every 11 years...thats correct..

but also..

every hundred years or so this is done with extreme violence like the 1859 event..

also we have to add to the mix the breach in the magnetosphere 3 times the size of earth discovered by Nasa

now there is evidence that the next cycle is like the 1859 event and you know what the evidence is..haha ..you will love this..

the sun got quiet when it supposed was not..thats the sign..infact scientists were worrying an ice age is coming since the acitivy was so low with the coming cycle was so close

and guess what...

i come in this OP full of evidence..now thats cool

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The every hundred years or so...



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the breach in the magnetosphere (our shield against the sun)...

Giant Breach in Earth's Magnetic Field Discovered

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the solar cycle prediction reminds scientists about the 1859 event..

"Even a below-average cycle is capable of producing severe space weather," points out Biesecker. "The great geomagnetic storm of 1859, for instance, occurred during a solar cycle of about the same size we’re predicting for 2013."

New Solar Cycle Prediction

reply to post by chr0naut

He is probably referring to the

TextThe natural environment encompasses all living and non-living things occurring naturally on Earth or some region thereof. It is an environment that encompasses the interaction of all living species.[1] The concept of the natural environment can be distinguished by components: Complete ecological units that function as natural systems without massive human intervention, including all vegetation, microorganisms, soil, rocks, atmosphere and natural phenomena that occur within their boundaries. Universal natural resources and physical phenomena that lack clear-cut boundaries, such as air, water, and climate, as well as energy, radiation, electric charge, and magnetism, not originating from human activity. The natural environment is contrasted with the built environment, which comprises the areas and components that are strongly influenced by humans. A geographical area is regarded as a natural environment.

source(en.wikipedia.org...

wake up sheeple...


this aint a prediction from a blind monk..a vision in a dream..nor a mayan prediciton..

the Sun is Real, it is huge..it is very close,...it is dangerous...

not for us directly though!!...to our techonology..so imho..there is nothing wrong to get informed and prepared to live in a world without technology...

it might really happen

reply to post by heineken


So we should "wake up" to the thread topic that solar pole reversals are related to Earth pole reversals, too?

reply to post by Chamberf=6

Why keep posting quotes

TextIrreducible complexity (IC) is an argument by proponents of intelligent design that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring, chance mutations.[1] The argument is central to intelligent design, and is rejected by the scientific community at large,[2] which overwhelmingly regards intelligent design as pseudoscience.[3] Irreducible complexity is one of two main arguments used by intelligent design proponents, the other being specified complexity.[4] Biochemistry professor Michael Behe, the originator of the term irreducible complexity, defines an irreducibly complex system as one "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning".[5] These examples are said to demonstrate that modern biological forms could not have evolved naturally. Evolutionary biologists have shown that such systems can evolve,[6] and that Behe's examples constitute an argument from ignorance.[7] In the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, Behe gave testimony on the subject of irreducible complexity. The court found that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."[2]

source(en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by diamondsmith
reply to post by Chamberf=6

 

Why keep posting quotes

TextIrreducible complexity (IC) is an argument by proponents of intelligent design that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring, chance mutations.[1] The argument is central to intelligent design, and is rejected by the scientific community at large,[2] which overwhelmingly regards intelligent design as pseudoscience.[3] Irreducible complexity is one of two main arguments used by intelligent design proponents, the other being specified complexity.[4] Biochemistry professor Michael Behe, the originator of the term irreducible complexity, defines an irreducibly complex system as one "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning".[5] These examples are said to demonstrate that modern biological forms could not have evolved naturally. Evolutionary biologists have shown that such systems can evolve,[6] and that Behe's examples constitute an argument from ignorance.[7] In the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, Behe gave testimony on the subject of irreducible complexity. The court found that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."[2]

source(en.wikipedia.org...

Well what I asked was "Why keep posting quotes from sources that have nothing to do with your OP or your other assertions (not to mention nothing to do with some of the posts you respond to)?"

And you give me a quote about biological complexity.


Kind of illustrates my question.