Notices
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: how does Earth's magnetic field works

  1. #1 how does Earth's magnetic field works 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    4
    Theory of earth magnetic field

    Or, how does Earth's magnetic field works.
    I found for my surprise some days ago, that there was no explanation on how does the earth magnetic field work. I've always thought of it as an evidence and as such I assumed it was allready theorized.
    I seems clear for me that some facts are proven and those will leed to this theory I'm presenting.

    Fact number 1
    There's a large percentage of iron and other metals inside the earth.

    Fact number 2
    Those metal are also in the planet core.

    Fact number 3
    The planet core has a very high temperature.

    Fact number 4
    The planet core is in liquid state.

    Fact number 5
    Some metals generate magnetism upon friction.

    Fact number 6
    The inertia law.

    Fact number 7
    The liquid and gas behavior upon movement of the earth (currents).

    Fact number 8
    The universal gravitational effect.

    In presence of this facts one can imagine that the earth is mainly a liquid planet with a relativly small hard shell, wich is mostly covered with water. I am by this classifiyng the magma as a liquid, once that it has a liquid behavior, demonstrated in every volcanic eruption worldwide.

    Therefore, one can assume that the liquid core of the planet will suffer the same efect verified in the atmosphere and in the oceans. That is, the planet core has inner currents.

    Those inner currents by their turn generate friction among all the elements in presence, includind the metals. And some of those metals when frictioned generate magnetism. The combination of the trillions of small magnetic fields generated by that friction and the interaction among those will then generate the planet magnetic field.

    The interaction results from the proximity amoung all those trillions of small magnets, like if one person ghater a group of magnets and reunites them in a small space, the positive side will push away the other positive sides and atract the negative sides, reorganising the magnets positions in a one way orientation.

    Another way of visualising the effect of the rotating movement generated by a hard shell containing a liquid interior, is by watching a glass of water with some small solid objects inside. As one rotates the glass around its geometrical center one can see that the liquid stays stationary during some time while the glass continues its rotating movement, and even when the liquid is turning its speed is diferent than the glass that contains it.

    Another effect of this inner currents is that the small magnetic fields are moving, therefore leading to the changes in the earth magnetic field, the magnetic declination (declinação magnética in portuguese). Another of the forces involved in this movements, or currents, is the gravitational effect of the moon. As the gravitic effect of the earth satelite is not restricted to earth's surface it also affects the liquid core. The same principle aplies for the sun's gravitacional effect upon the earth's core.

    Allthough small, those magnetic fields are in very vast numbers, as we've only scratched the surface of the planet when considering its diameter.

    In conclusion, this effects of friction delivered by the planet's rotation, the moon and sun gravitational forces, generate a great amount of small magnetic fields wich by their turn act togheter to generate the planet's magnetic field.

    João Pedro Gonçalves Viegas Jacinto


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: how does Earth's magnetic field works 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by JP Jacinto
    I found for my surprise some days ago, that there was no explanation on how does the earth magnetic field work.
    The generation and maintenance of the Earth's magnetic field by convection currents in the outer core is widely accepted. Modelling of this explains the strength, variation and reversals of the field. why do you think no epxlanation exists?

    Facts 1 through 3 are correct.
    Quote Originally Posted by JP Jacinto
    Fact number 4
    The planet core is in liquid state.
    Only the outer core is in a liquid state.

    Quote Originally Posted by JP Jacinto
    Fact number 5
    Some metals generate magnetism upon friction.
    Name them. How does this mechanism work? Is it related to the build up of static charges?

    Quote Originally Posted by JP Jacinto
    Fact number 6
    The inertia law.
    The number of sheep in Andorra.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 no explanation 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    4
    Ophiolite

    I think that there's no explanation after having seen a very well done program in the National Geographic and Discovery channel about earth magnetic field, where some cientists stated that it was unknowed how that works.

    Therefore I formulated this simple theory based on logical dedution from knowed facts. My intention is to launch a discussion that may prove me right or wrong... but that will take us closer to the knowledge and understanding of our planet.

    Why do you think that the inner core is not liquid?
    Temperatures increase as one gets closer to the core, why and how would they start decreasing? It's not logic.

    Th metals. What diference makes a list of names? Haven't you ever seen a needle being magnetized? It's how a compass is made to point the north...

    I don't understand your relation between the number of sheep in Andorra and the inertia law of phisics, is it just sarcasm? Or do you mean anything productive?

    As said above, the reason I formulated this theory is simply to launch a discussion (a serious one) about our planet's magnetic field, to prove me wrong or right... and that will get us closer to a better knowledge. That's all.

    thanks for you comment.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: no explanation 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by JP Jacinto
    I think that there's no explanation after having seen a very well done program in the National Geographic and Discovery channel about earth magnetic field, where some cientists stated that it was unknowed how that works.
    such programs are primarily produced for entertainment. The producers seek researchers with controversial ideas, or who will add a sense of mystery to their subject. Such programs are not the place to go for solid information on scientific theory. Read any geophysics textbook, or consult a myriad of papers in the peer reviewed research journals and there you will get a proper introduction to theory.

    Quote Originally Posted by JP Jacinto
    Therefore I formulated this simple theory based on logical dedution from knowed facts. My intention is to launch a discussion that may prove me right or wrong... but that will take us closer to the knowledge and understanding of our planet.
    It is a worthy and noble aim. However, it is unecessary. The problem is, in general solved. There are many details which are controversial and problematic. If you wish to make a contribution I suggest you study the basic theory properly and not via a popular TV show.

    Quote Originally Posted by JP Jacinto
    Why do you think that the inner core is not liquid?
    Temperatures increase as one gets closer to the core, why and how would they start decreasing? It's not logic.
    I know the inner core is not liquid because it trasnmits S-waves. Such waves will not pass through a liquid.
    While the temperature does indeed increase, so does the pressure. It is the pressure that maintains the very hot material in the inner core as a solid.


    Quote Originally Posted by JP Jacinto
    Th metals. What diference makes a list of names? Haven't you ever seen a needle being magnetized? It's how a compass is made to point the north....
    You made a claim. I challenge the claim. you are mistaken. A needle is not magnetised by friction. It is magnetised by consistently applying another moving magnetic field to the needle. Contact with the needle is unecessary, so friction is not involved. You have misunderstood the process.


    Quote Originally Posted by JP Jacinto
    I don't understand your relation between the number of sheep in Andorra and the inertia law of phisics, is it just sarcasm? Or do you mean anything productive?.
    It was sarcasm and it was meant to indicate that your list of statements had become quite meaningless. You made no connection between the points you listed. There was very little self evident connection between them. It was badly argued. Poor arguments should be ridiculed in the hope that the presenter will develop a better argument or recognise that he is in error. (Foi também um esforço para ser simpático. Eu pensei que você pôde gostar de referência para outro lugar na Península Ibérica.)


    As said above, the reason I formulated this theory is simply to launch a discussion (a serious one) about our planet's magnetic field, to prove me wrong or right...
    .As I said, this is a good objective, but you have some wrong ideas about the Earth and about magnetism. It would be more useful to learn the basics thoroughly before you attempt to change a solution that took many great brains many decades to work out.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 chalenges..? 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    4
    You made a claim. I challenge the claim. you are mistaken. A needle is not magnetised by friction. It is magnetised by consistently applying another moving magnetic field to the needle. Contact with the needle is unecessary, so friction is not involved. You have misunderstood the process.
    Ophiolite...

    I can only tell you to make the experience... that obviously you haven't done.

    Friction a simple needle with a cloth for 1 minute (aprox) and place it on a floating and light basis above water. you'll see the needle and the base turn and point north...


    I know the inner core is not liquid because it trasnmits S-waves. Such waves will not pass through a liquid.
    While the temperature does indeed increase, so does the pressure. It is the pressure that maintains the very hot material in the inner core as a solid.
    S-waves convert to waves when going trough liquid, that's how tsunami's are genareted. And pressure alone does NOT change a liquid into solid. It is you that need to do some research/studying.

    Before chalenge the individual aspects of my theory, why dont you present the similar existing ones?

    Or any existing theory that was assumed by someone?

    No problem in watching TV dear sir (or madam, I don't even know you gender as the name you use seems a code).
    Because I don't limit myself to TV, I follow other sources (like the world patents for example) and sci magazines. The TV program was only the spark that triggered this. I don't have to demonstrate or prove the research done for the theory... not to anonimous chalengers like you at least.

    I'm not expecting any profit from this theory of any kind, but I am expecting chalenges to it, and so far I have NOT seen the biggest one... that is:
    presenting a previous similar theory or one that proves me wrong in the concept, not in the detail.

    Prove me wrong if you can, prove me right if your able. But leave small talk out of this.

    If you look closely at the molecule you won't be able to see the body it belongs to.
    JP Jacinto, november 2010

    best regards
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Re: chalenges..? 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by JP Jacinto
    I don't have to demonstrate or prove the research done for the theory... not to anonimous chalengers like you at least.
    Yes you do. The scientific method requires that you demonstrate the validity of your speculation and respond to any challenges to it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7 Re: chalenges..? 
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by JP Jacinto
    Friction a simple needle with a cloth for 1 minute (aprox) and place it on a floating and light basis above water. you'll see the needle and the base turn and point north...
    And the needle is randomly magnetised along its length? Why? Why not across its width? No, this sounds like bullshit to me. Even if there were a viable mechanism for magnetising a needle with a piece of cloth, this would not work.

    Quote Originally Posted by JP Jacinto
    S-waves convert to waves when going trough liquid, that's how tsunami's are genareted.
    S-waves are waves. The clue is in the name. S-waves cannot travel through liquids because liquids do not have a structure to transmit sheer waves.

    Tsunamis are generated by vertical displacement of a submarine fault line; we do not see tsnuamis generated when there is an earthquake along the San Andreas fault, for instance.

    Quote Originally Posted by JP Jacinto
    And pressure alone does NOT change a liquid into solid.
    Yes it does.



    in the diagram, you can see that removing the pressure from deep-buried rock will cause it to form a magma, and vice versa. In fact, this is exactly how volcanism arises.

    Quote Originally Posted by JP Jacinto
    I don't have to demonstrate or prove the research done for the theory
    You simply do. That's how the scientific method works. If you make a profound claim and then smugly refuse to support it, you get laughed at, and rightly so.

    Quote Originally Posted by JP Jacinto
    I'm not expecting any profit from this theory of any kind, but I am expecting chalenges to it, and so far I have NOT seen the biggest one... that is:
    presenting a previous similar theory or one that proves me wrong in the concept, not in the detail.
    So you are declaring that you must be held correct untill shown otherwise? That's not how the burden of evidence works. (see above)
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •