Supposedly, the earth's magnetic poles have
reversed several times.

A permanent magnet implies a DC current.  That
means charges, with mass, orbiting.  A pole
reversal implies a current reversal, does it not?
Wouldn't this represent a massive violation of
angular momentum conservation?

--
Rich

On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 19:38:42 -0700 (PDT), RichD
<r...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Supposedly, the earth's magnetic poles have
>reversed several times.
>
>A permanent magnet implies a DC current.

No, an electromagnet implies a DC current. Permanemt magnets seldom
include batteries.


  That
>means charges, with mass, orbiting.  A pole
>reversal implies a current reversal, does it not?
>Wouldn't this represent a massive violation of
>angular momentum conservation?

Current has very little mass.

John

RichD wrote:
> Supposedly, the earth's magnetic poles have
> reversed several times.
> 
> A permanent magnet implies a DC current.  That
> means charges, with mass, orbiting.  A pole
> reversal implies a current reversal, does it not?
> Wouldn't this represent a massive violation of
> angular momentum conservation?

   Why should it... the total angular momentum of the earth
   is conserved, including mass and energy (equivalent mass).


> 
> --
> Rich
> 

On Jun 19, 7:38=A0pm, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Supposedly, the earth's magnetic poles have
> reversed several times.
>
> A permanent magnet implies a DC current. =A0That
> means charges, with mass, orbiting. =A0A pole
> reversal implies a current reversal, does it not?
> Wouldn't this represent a massive violation of
> angular momentum conservation?
>
> --
> Rich

I think a current reversal does cause the poles to flip, but only a
tiny amount of mass in the atmospheric winds is responsible for this
reversal. The main magnetic field is governed by the much smaller
atmospheric magnetic effects. See:

http://franklinhu.com/earthmag.html

fhumag

On Jun 19, 10:38=A0pm, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Supposedly, the earth's magnetic poles have
> reversed several times.
>
> A permanent magnet implies a DC current. =A0That
> means charges, with mass, orbiting. =A0A pole
> reversal implies a current reversal, does it not?
> Wouldn't this represent a massive violation of
> angular momentum conservation?
>
> --
> Rich

Actually, a magnetic field implies a moving electric charge. The Core
is
metallic, and it and its electrons rotate (move) , along with the rest
of the planet.
 This is a more likely source for the Earth's magnetic field.

The cause of reversals is less easily explained, but, still ultimately
arises
from Core dynamics.

Brad

RichD <r...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:f54cb993-336b-4c57-abd5-
4...@y10g2000prc.googlegroups.com:

> Supposedly, the earth's magnetic poles have
> reversed several times.
> 
> A permanent magnet implies a DC current.  That
> means charges, with mass, orbiting.  A pole
> reversal implies a current reversal, does it not?
> Wouldn't this represent a massive violation of
> angular momentum conservation?
> 
> --
> Rich
> 

This is fairly old stuff (I'm not up to date on this), but take a look at 
http://www.es.ucsc.edu/~glatz/geodynamo.html  for an idea on the basis for 
current (pun intended) thinking.  The general notion is that the outer core 
is a convecting, electrically conductive liquid.  Each convection cell can 
be thought of as an electric dynamo, generating both current and a magnetic 
field.  The Earth's dipole field is simply the sum of all the fields 
generated by all the numerous convection cells in the core.  Since the 
core's convection is turbulent, the convection cell structure changes with 
time - some grow, some die, some are born - and as the core convection 
changes, so does the Earth's magnetic field.  Hope this helps.

RichD wrote:
> 
> Supposedly, the earth's magnetic poles have
> reversed several times.

Several?  Magnetic striping of the Pacific basin.  Yeah, "several."
 
> A permanent magnet implies a DC current.

idiot

> That
> means charges, with mass, orbiting.  A pole
> reversal implies a current reversal, does it not?
> Wouldn't this represent a massive violation of
> angular momentum conservation?

idiot

<http://www.psc.edu/science/glatzmaier.html>;
<http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/physical_science/images/mag_dynamo1_small_jpg_image.html>;
<http://blackandwhiteprogram.com/interview/dr-dan-lathrop-the-study-of-the-earths-magnetic-field/2>;

Put something in your head before you open your mouth.  Remember all
the crap you were taught in high school?  Ignore it, then learn how to
think.

-- 
Uncle Al 
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ 
 (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) 
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

On Jun 19, 7:38=A0pm, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Supposedly, the earth's magnetic poles have
> reversed several times.

More than a supposition, magnetic particles in ocean ooze
point like compass  needles, and freeze in direction
when the ooze consolidates.   This makes a fossil
magnetic record.

> A permanent magnet implies a DC current. =A0That
> means charges, with mass, orbiting. =A0A pole
> reversal implies a current reversal, does it not?
> Wouldn't this represent a massive violation of
> angular momentum conservation?

It might, if the charged particles weren't interacting with
other masses.  That's not the case, though: inside
the earth, molten material is known to circulate in
convection  cells, and only a small part of its mass
carries charge.
> --
> Rich

 "franklinhu" <f...@yahoo.com> wrote 
news:a...@y10g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 19, 7:38 pm, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Supposedly, the earth's magnetic poles have
> reversed several times.
>
> A permanent magnet implies a DC current. That
> means charges, with mass, orbiting. A pole
> reversal implies a current reversal, does it not?
> Wouldn't this represent a massive violation of
> angular momentum conservation?
>
> --
> Rich

I think a current reversal does cause the poles to flip, but only a
tiny amount of mass in the atmospheric winds is responsible for this
reversal. The main magnetic field is governed by the much smaller
atmospheric magnetic effects. See:

http://franklinhu.com/earthmag.html

fhumag

Excellent job. "This may explain the nature of magnetic reversals since 
magnetic reversals are often associated with the onset of ice ages. Radical 
changes in the Earth's weather patterns could make winds moving from East to 
West, dominate winds moving from West to East. This reversal would also 
cause the entire Earth's magnetic field to flip."

You are very busy man so try to rework a little your Explanation.
Take into account:
1. The Earth surface and the atmosphere has the excess of electrons.
2. The electrons are in the atmosphere only on the H2O. (Dry air is the 
excellent insulator),
3. At ice ages no H2O in the atmosphere, (the electrons are only on the 
surface of the Earth),
4. At ice ages the total excess of electrons may be lower, (they escape into 
space like on the Moon),

Of course you should start with this:
"The way that this could work is that the upper atmosphere which contains 
the strong winds like the jet stream is ionized by incoming cosmic rays 
which gives the upper atmosphere a positive charge. If  a positive charge is 
moved in a circle from west to east, it would generate the magnetic poles 
with the same polarity as we see them on Earth. This is in accordance with 
the known physical properties of charges.You would get the same effect if 
you swung a bag of positively charged ions around you in a counter-clockwise 
direction"

The whole atmosphere has the excess of electrons. The maximum is at the 
equator. There are now winds (in the upper atmosphere) from East to West. 
What was in ice age nobody know.
S* 

On Jun 20, 7:57=A0pm, Szczepan Bia=B3ek <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
> =A0"franklinhu" <frankli...@yahoo.com> wrotenews:a538b1fa-fe11-485e-a5f8-=
1...@y10g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 19, 7:38 pm, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Supposedly, the earth's magnetic poles have
> > reversed several times.
>
> > A permanent magnet implies a DC current. That
> > means charges, with mass, orbiting. A pole
> > reversal implies a current reversal, does it not?
> > Wouldn't this represent a massive violation of
> > angular momentum conservation?
>
> > --
> > Rich
>
> I think a current reversal does cause the poles to flip, but only a
> tiny amount of mass in the atmospheric winds is responsible for this
> reversal. The main magnetic field is governed by the much smaller
> atmospheric magnetic effects. See:
>
> http://franklinhu.com/earthmag.html
>
> fhumag
>
> Excellent job. "This may explain the nature of magnetic reversals since
> magnetic reversals are often associated with the onset of ice ages. Radic=
al
> changes in the Earth's weather patterns could make winds moving from East=
 to
> West, dominate winds moving from West to East. This reversal would also
> cause the entire Earth's magnetic field to flip."
>
> You are very busy man so try to rework a little your Explanation.
> Take into account:
> 1. The Earth surface and the atmosphere has the excess of electrons.
> 2. The electrons are in the atmosphere only on the H2O. (Dry air is the
> excellent insulator),
> 3. At ice ages no H2O in the atmosphere, (the electrons are only on the
> surface of the Earth),
> 4. At ice ages the total excess of electrons may be lower, (they escape i=
nto
> space like on the Moon),
>
> Of course you should start with this:
> "The way that this could work is that the upper atmosphere which contains
> the strong winds like the jet stream is ionized by incoming cosmic rays
> which gives the upper atmosphere a positive charge. If =A0a positive char=
ge is
> moved in a circle from west to east, it would generate the magnetic poles
> with the same polarity as we see them on Earth. This is in accordance wit=
h
> the known physical properties of charges.You would get the same effect if
> you swung a bag of positively charged ions around you in a counter-clockw=
ise
> direction"
>
> The whole atmosphere has the excess of electrons. The maximum is at the
> equator. There are now winds (in the upper atmosphere) from East to West.
> What was in ice age nobody know.
> S*

You should consider again what Uncle Al said :
#Quote
idiot
Put something in your head before you open your mouth.  Remember all
the crap you were taught in high school?  Ignore it, then learn how
to
think.
--
Uncle Al
#Unquote

This is so appropriate after reading such nonsense from above,
including Brad 's

Indeed  there was never any Glaciations nor Glacial Ages nor Paleo Ice
Ages of any kind etc , further the stability of Earth is quite well
established,   that such "accident" can only be the result of Cosmic
encounter.
... and such have indeed left their marks in the Earth Relief,  which
are called Orogensis ( Caledonian, Hercynian, Alpines for the main
ones)

I find it amazing how the reptilian mind has taken preemininance in
Mankind 's  thinking with that constant groping in the dark, tossing
eagerly with anything and its contrary, while considering every Jo
Blow & his dog's opinion as respectable. No, the complexity of issue
make it impossible to resolve that riddle in such a spastic way,
grinding on with aspect of the whole one after the others.

Truth is elsewhere indeed !

Jean-Paul Turcaud
Australia Mining Pioneer
#Discoverer & Legal Owner of Telfer Mine ( Australia largest Copper &
Gold MIne)
Nifty (Cu) & Kintyre (U, Th) Mines, all in the Great Sandy Desert
Exploration Geologist & Offshore Consultant
Founder of the True Geology

~ Ignorance is the Cosmic Sin, the One Never Forgiven ~


for background info.
http://www.tnet.com.au/~warrigal/grule.html
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/tel/index.html
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/tel/nac.html
http://members.iimetro.com.au/~hubbca/turcaud.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/bbing/stories/s28534.htm
TRUE GEOLOGY FOUNDATION DOCUMENT
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/69327