Electric Charge On a Planet.
HenriWilson
Are planets electrically neutral?
Is net charge easy to measure?
Has planet 'voltage' ever been measured?
How might a charge imbalance affect the motion of an orbiting planet?
Would a planet near the sun be more likely to be charged than an outer one?
Might the movement of such charge create a magnetic field that interacts with
the planet's internal one and that of the sun and other space objects?
Could the anomalous perihelion advance of Mercury be caused by the orbital
movement of its own charge?
Could there be a charge gradient across a planet due for instance to the sun's
radiation?
No silly answers please.
Henri Wilson.
See my animations at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm
Uncle Al
>
> What is known about residual charge imbalance on planets?
None. The solar UV plus solar wind shorts them out.
> No silly answers please.
>
> Henri Wilson.
The loud idiot whines about competition.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Rob Fatland
increasing proximity to Mars with every passing day.
Here is one thing to consider: The solar wind includes lots of charged particles
and when these jump the gap into the earth's magnetic field we get the auroras.
A planet is far from being electrically isolated system, a clever notion arrived
at after a fraction of a second's thought, far less time than it took you to
write out your nine questions. This rather begs the question, doesn't it:
Why are you asking questions you can easily think about and answer for yourself?
The answer of course lies in your reference to Mercury. Bad troll. Go to the
library. No cookie. Bad troll.
Old Man
news:ctveiv8ttp7ab3ci6...@4ax.com...
Seen any lightning bolts between the Earth and the Moon Lately? How
much charge difference could get by the corner cubes on the moon,
Henry? Would an electrically conducting geosynchronous satellite stay
geosynchronous if the Earth had a charge? How much charge is to
much, Henry? A -1 / r^3 potential causes orbital precession, not -1 / r.
Doesn't Henry know that? Henry asks silly questions. [Old Man]
Edward Green
<...>
> A planet is far from being electrically isolated system, a clever notion arrived
> at after a fraction of a second's thought, far less time than it took you to
> write out your nine questions. This rather begs the question, doesn't it:
>
> Why are you asking questions you can easily think about and answer for yourself?
>
> The answer of course lies in your reference to Mercury. Bad troll.
OK ... just for the sake of devil's advocate -- a position which we
enjoyed a mutual appreciation of in the fan thread -- is there some
reason it is inherently absurd to think an orbital anomaly might be
due to electromagnetism?
> HenriWilson wrote:
>
> > What is known about residual charge imbalance on planets?
> > Are planets electrically neutral?
> > Is net charge easy to measure?
> > Has planet 'voltage' ever been measured?
> > How might a charge imbalance affect the motion of an orbiting planet?
> > Would a planet near the sun be more likely to be charged than an outer one?
These are reasonable questions, deficient only in legwork.
> > Might the movement of such charge create a magnetic field that interacts with
> > the planet's internal one and that of the sun and other space objects?
This one strikes me as misguided, though. A moving electron creates a
magnetic field, but this magnetic field does not interact with the
electron's intrinsic magnetic moment -- other than by linear addition
in a particular frame -- nor does it react with external fields
(caveat ditto); the "interaction" of moving charge and field is
already accounted for in the Lorentz force law.
> > Could the anomalous perihelion advance of Mercury be caused by the orbital
> > movement of its own charge?
> > Could there be a charge gradient across a planet due for instance to the sun's
> > radiation?
Yes. :-)
> > No silly answers please.
The problem with the Mercury perihelion thing seems to me not that it
is intrinsically impossible, but simply that it is unmotivated,
uncalculated, and the anomaly has already been claimed successfully.
If Wilson had worked out a quantitative explanation along these lines
between 1859 and 1916, there might have been a chance. What was he
doing all those years? :-)
Interesting I _don't_ find this angle among a list of attempts to
explain the shift classically -- which includes "A number of ad hoc
proposals ... including, among others, the existence of a new planet
Vulcan near the Sun, a ring of planetoids, a solar quadrupole moment
and a deviation from the inverse-square law of gravitation".
(http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/node11.html)
"Ad hoc" is post editorializing: finding unknown planets by orbital
perturbations was after all a known game; it just happened not to
produce results in this case. And like the charged planet, a solar
quadrupole moment was not ridiculous, simply wrong.
Bilge
>What is known about residual charge imbalance on planets?
constantly, you should have seen it.
tj Frazir
cloth of the sun.
The earth is stroked in one direction and has a core that is solid
iron with allot of carbon .
Barry
HenriWilson wrote:
> What is known about residual charge imbalance on planets?
> Are planets electrically neutral?
I seem to recall being told, many decades ago, that the Earth's surface
had a net negative charge, but I don't know that there's any truth to
the statement.
> Is net charge easy to measure?
I doubt it.
> Has planet 'voltage' ever been measured?
The "voltage" would vary depending on whwn and where it were being measured.
The only significant voltages I can think of are the ones involved in
electrical storms.
> How might a charge imbalance affect the motion of an orbiting planet?
The *might* affect the motion significantly, *if* they were very large.
The planets are very far apart.
I don't know that any such effect has ever been noticed.
> Would a planet near the sun be more likely to be charged than an outer one?
I don't know that there's any theory on this.
But if the sun had a net charge then a close planet might well have
different induced charges on the sides facing towards and away from the sun.
> Might the movement of such charge create a magnetic field that interacts with
> the planet's internal one and that of the sun and other space objects?
One would expect so, but if it were significant, the orbits might well
be unstable - suggesting that planets with long stable orbits are almost
completely electrically neutral.
> Could the anomalous perihelion advance of Mercury be caused by the orbital
> movement of its own charge?
I would think that a net charge would make the orbit unstable rather
than cause a precession in the orbit. But that's a guess.
> Could there be a charge gradient across a planet due for instance to the sun's
> radiation?
Due to the sun's charge, yes.
Due to the radiation of charged particles from the sun, yes.
Due to em radiation from the sun, maybe due to interaction between that
radiation and charged particles enveloping the Earth, perhaps.
> No silly answers please.
Oh, sorry, I didn't read that bit.
--
Barry
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to
entertain a thought without accepting it.
-- Aristotle (384 BC - 322 BC)
Richard Herring
<here...@mts.net> writes
>
>
>HenriWilson wrote:
>
>> What is known about residual charge imbalance on planets?
>> Are planets electrically neutral?
>
>I seem to recall being told, many decades ago, that the Earth's surface
>had a net negative charge, but I don't know that there's any truth to
>the statement.
Probably true - but the corresponding positive charge is on the clouds,
not the rest of the solar system.
--
Richard Herring
The Ghost In The Machine
<Gravity...@webtv.net>
wrote
on Wed, 30 Jul 2003 22:03:46 -0400 (EDT)
<6522-3F2...@storefull-2152.public.lawson.webtv.net>:
Poetic after a fashion -- but dead wrong. :-) For starters,
the sun is a gaseous ball.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
tj Frazir
Earth is still a pice of iron and the sun is still the cloth.
The earth is still going in one direction stroking
a charge off the sun.
Lightning has nothin to do with the mag of earth ,,clouds zap other
clouds often and can be pos or neg.
Lighning is a fuel cell giving off charge by condensation and the
earths mag is the constant stroking of iron in a field.
You can play stupid and saw wrong like a word twisting libral fuckhead
but can you understand the facts ?
I made it so fucking simple a kid with a colb could replicate it.
Edward Green
It is inevitable that planets will have some net charge: the only
question is the magnitude of the effect. A preliminary Google search
is not encouraging, however.
Richard
It can't have very much of a charge, or gravity would be out the window.
Calculate the charge difference required to equal the gravitational
attraction. Now Calculate the charge difference required between the Sun
and Earth that would produce a measurable deviation in Earth's orbit.
I've calculated this before and it was a surprisingly small difference.
And I think someone else has posted it in former thread as well.
Richard Perry
tj Frazir
and use a cordless to turn it against the brush and magnetise the globe.
Want lightning too ??
Put a condencer ,,i mean a cuel cell..
in the sky .
Come on now ! The earths magnetic charge is childs play evryone that
can get past 7th grade should know work and the basics to magetisem.
Stroke some thing and float it and see whitch way is north ,,,or
stroke it and ballance it ..
once you charge it up ,,you know where to go.
Evry magnet is made the same.
Dont matter if its a electro magnet or what the diploes stand up so
electrons can share orbits.
MY GOD !!
How old are you and where did you learn reality at ??
Old Man
news:2a0cceff.03073...@posting.google.com...
Calculate the charge per unit mass, rho, to produce an electric force
equal to that of the gravitational force on Earth:
Qq= [ 4*pi*ep0 ][ G*M*m ] C^2
rho = sqrt[ 4*pi*ep0*G ] C / kg
ep0 = 8.854 x 10^(-12)
G = 6.673 x 10^(-11)
m (Earth) = 5.97 x 10^(24) kg
M (Sun) = 2.0 x 10^(30) kg
e = 1.602 x 10^(-19) C
r (Earth-Sun) = 1.5 x 10^(11) m
R (Earth radius) = 6.4 x 10(6) m
rho = 8.6 x 10^(-11) C / kg
rho / e = 5.4 x 10^(8) electrons / kg
q / e (Earth) = 3.2 x 10^(33) electrons <------------
Q (Sun) = 1.7 x 10^(20) C
Electric field, E, at Earth orbit:
E = [ 1 / 4*pi*ep0 ] [ Q / r^2 ] = 68 x 10^(6) volts / meter
So, assuming equal charge densities for Earth and Sun, an electric
field at Earth orbit equivalent to one millionth of the Earth-Sun
gravitational force is 68 volts / meter. That's 870 million volts
through the diameter of the Earth (big solar tides?). [Old Man]
Henri Wilson
Wouldn't you only have to consider surface charge here?
Or more likely, the charge on the radiation belts.
We can assume that the core has no voltage gradient across it.
It appears from your calculation that a relatively small residual charge would
afect the orbit quite considerably.
Henri Wilson
So there are many possibilities as far as Mercury is concerned, being so close
to the sun and presumably with a surface that is a very poor conductor.
However any effect on the actual orbit would be an inverse square law
relationship like gravity so should not make any difference to the orbit. What
might affect it is the magnetic force caused by the movement of net charge.
Once again, quite a few possibilities here.
>
>Richard Perry
nightbat
nightbat
Yes, the metallic core makeup of a stellar or planetary space
body is very important to gravitational position including around a
further dominant stellar body.
the nightbat
Old Man
news:384kivo8nim3s9f88...@4ax.com...
The physics of charge separation would determine the appropriate
charge distribution. No assumptions about charge distribution have
been made here. It has been assumed that bulk charge density is
proportional to bulk mass density, but the charge could reside on the
surface as well. The numbers reported above are unchanged. The
tidal effect would be much greater if one assumed that all of the
charge resided on the ocean surface. Henri is welcome to calculate
the results for particular charge distributions and charge densities,
but be forewarned that other assumptions make for very messy
calculations. esthetically rho = sqrt[ 4*pi*ep0*G ] is elegant.
> Or more likely, the charge on the radiation belts.
>
> We can assume that the core has no voltage gradient across it.
>
> It appears from your calculation that a relatively small residual
> charge would afect the orbit quite considerably.
Yes. rho / e = 5.4 x 10^(8) electrons / kg is rather small, and that's
for equal electrical and gravitational force. Water has a neutral pH
with 10^7 H+ ions per mole.
> Henri Wilson.
[Old Man]
The Ghost In The Machine
<24404-3F...@storefull-2157.public.lawson.webtv.net>:
Interesting. So the Earth is stroking the Sun's "cloth".
Is this leading to:
[1] a charge imbalance between points on the Earth?
[2] a charge imbalance between the Earth and the Sun?
[3] Other effects?
tj Frazir
and the earth spins its orerntaion to the sun will magnetise the iron
iver a long time.
Like charging a nail by stroking it in the same direction till it will
pick up clips .
IT was NOT magnetized one bit when it was molten liquid !!
THE ONLY WAY TO MAGNETISE IRON IS MOVE IT THREW A FIELD >>>>>>>>>>>>
SO idiololigist ,,,pick another method other tha the only method and
tell us why the earth is magnetic ©¿©
The Ghost In The Machine
<11658-3F2...@storefull-2156.public.lawson.webtv.net>:
An interesting tack, that.
There's no real elegant method by which to determine whether
the Earth, when it was basically a big ball of molten rock (and
apparently slamming into other big balls of molten rocks of similar
size) was magnetic or not. At best we might determine the
magnetisim of rocks as they solidified -- but that's after
they're no longer liquid, but sort of plastic.
As far as I can tell orbiting a piece of ferromagnetic material,
say, a needle, around a bar magnet pointing in the same general
direction as the needle will not do all that much for the needle.
However, it turns out the Sun's magnetic field is a little more
complicated than this naive model; it actually describes what
is apparently known as a "Parker spiral", presuambly because
of the Sun's gaseous nature (and the scientist who first described
the effect).
It also turns out the Sun's magnetic field flips every
sunspot cycle. 11 years ago the Sun's magnetic field
is reversed from what it is now. While it is far from
clear that the Sun's been doing this all of its life or
why it does so (I was expecting a constant direction,
like Jupiter's orientation, which turns out to be opposite
from Earth's) it's clear that in its current form the Sun
can't be sustaining Earth's field.
http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/solarmag.html
There is also the issue that the Earth's magnetic field wobbles
and is not aligned with the axis. The Earth's magnetic field
also flips, although the cycle is far longer -- once every 300,000
years or so. Another might happen in about 50,000 years.
(It is hoped the flip does not lead to high amounts of radiation
impinging us from the solar wind.)
http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/a10819.html
tj Frazir
Our orentation in the field is in cross evry 11 years. In 11 years
our orbit flips the mag because we follow east of our last orbit evry
orbit. In 22 years 22 orbits with no orbit line on top of another
,,,the moon dont ,,,if the moon orbited the eart like the earth orbits
sun the moon would be up side down half the time.
The moon would ay the earth fliped.
Nope ,,just an orbit cycle .
There is a simple reason the suns mag flips upside down ,,,we moved .
Henri Wilson
>Earth has one extra electron, the corresponding proton is on Mars, hence our
>increasing proximity to Mars with every passing day.
>
>Here is one thing to consider: The solar wind includes lots of charged particles
>and when these jump the gap into the earth's magnetic field we get the auroras.
>A planet is far from being electrically isolated system, a clever notion arrived
>at after a fraction of a second's thought, far less time than it took you to
>write out your nine questions. This rather begs the question, doesn't it:
>
>Why are you asking questions you can easily think about and answer for yourself?
>
>The answer of course lies in your reference to Mercury. Bad troll. Go to the
>library. No cookie. Bad troll.
Did you write this as an answer to my questions or an exercise in time wasting?
Henri Wilson
So what are you people trying to say.
Are you agreeing that net surplus charge COULD conceiveably affect a planet's
orbit?
Henri Wilson
If there were electric charge effects, we would simply make an error in
calculating an orbiting planet's mass. Magnetic interactions with charge bias
could conceiveably affect the perihelion advance of Mercury.
>
>
> the nightbat
Sam Wormley
>
> The suns mag dont flip evry 11 years.
Flipping of the Sun's Magnetic Field
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast15feb_1.htm?list125479
Resources - Sun
http://edu-observatory.org/eo/sun.html
The Ghost In The Machine
<1477-3F2...@storefull-2158.public.lawson.webtv.net>:
> The suns mag dont flip evry 11 years.
You deny observations?
> Our orentation in the field is in cross evry 11 years.
Actually, we cross, say, Jupiter's ecliptic every 6 months.
I'm not sure about the Sun's rotational plane -- after all, the
Sun is a gaseous ball and gaseous balls tend to do weird things. :-)
Including flip magnetic fields, apparently. (I wonder if we can
observe this in other stars as well? Say, through radioastronomy?)
> In 11 years
> our orbit flips the mag because we follow east of our last orbit evry
> orbit. In 22 years 22 orbits with no orbit line on top of another
> ,,,the moon dont ,,,if the moon orbited the eart like the earth orbits
> sun the moon would be up side down half the time.
> The moon would ay the earth fliped.
> Nope ,,just an orbit cycle .
> There is a simple reason the suns mag flips upside down ,,,we moved .
In order to observe the Sun flipping with your hypothesis
(assuming I'm understanding it correctly) we'd have to move
in the opposite direction. Since the starfield doesn't
rotate from year to year (although it does rotate during
the year; Orion, for instance, is a winter constellation
in the northern hemisphere) I'd say that this particular
hypothesis doesn't fly too well.
tj Frazir
Water on the south pole looks like it turns the other way in the bucket
but your looking at the
OTHER END OF THE SAME ROTATION.
Our moon is in one orbit ,,,the earth is in two orbits ,,,as it orbits
the orbit it self orbits.
AS the orbit of earth and core rotoation of the sun ,,,,like the moon
had gone over the north pole ,,,wile the earth turned ,,,and came down
the same side of earth it went up on.
people in NYNY would have seen it go up,,stop..turn around and come
back.
The earth dont make a nice same track orbit like a ball on a string.
Evry 11 years we go over the top and down the same side of the sun
FLIP.
whad they say ???
tj Frazir
MOON went over the north pole as the earth turned and people would have
seen it stop and come back down the same side again and NYNY would have
seen it twice.
The moon would have said our mag fliped.
tj Frazir
Im allso shure nasa couldnt find thier asses with boath hands.
I bet if you look at the crap a bit closer you will see it went up one
side and down the other.
An elipical gyro orbit .
Like spinning a wheel will you turn it.. wile you rotate .
Evry 11 rotations your wheel backwards .
at 180 deg the wheels rotation is backwards but the wheel never changed
directions.
Some dumbass at nasa out of many is jerking yer jiffy.
Harry
"Rob Fatland" <fat...@vexcel.com> wrote in message
news:3F28451E...@vexcel.com...
> Earth has one extra electron, the corresponding proton is on Mars, hence
our
> increasing proximity to Mars with every passing day.
>
> Here is one thing to consider: The solar wind includes lots of charged
particles
> and when these jump the gap into the earth's magnetic field we get the
auroras.
> A planet is far from being electrically isolated system, a clever notion
arrived
> at after a fraction of a second's thought, far less time than it took you
to
> write out your nine questions. This rather begs the question, doesn't it:
>
> Why are you asking questions you can easily think about and answer for
yourself?
>
> The answer of course lies in your reference to Mercury. Bad troll. Go to
the
> library. No cookie. Bad troll.
YOU forgot to make a calculation. Do you know anything about vacuum
physics?!
I suspect that you are a troll yourself!
Harald
Harry
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:3F284675...@hate.spam.net...
> HenriWilson wrote:
> >
> > What is known about residual charge imbalance on planets?
>
> None. The solar UV plus solar wind shorts them out.
>
> > No silly answers please.
> >
> > Henri Wilson.
>
>
> --
> Uncle Al
Interesting, I did not know that solar UV makes a short circuit in space!
How does that work?
Harald
tj Frazir
not a thierory ,,,no matter what the evidence.
So go ahead fucking dumbfuck.....
replicate the flip,,, heres the bar magnet..
show us evry posible method of pole fliping and have the same amount of
charge ,,or else.
I can just walk you around the table the magnet sits on and show you
the other end.
BUT YOU must cause the magnet N to be at the south end of that bar
magnet.
You dont have a coil.
The magnet must stay where it is.
have fun.
arthur
>
> Did you write this as an answer to my questions or an exercise in time wasting?
LOL !
Some people are soooo cleverrrrr than they consider that the only
question that deserves to be asked is theirs.
The complain for losing time answering question but spent time
insulting people and making no-constructive comment.
Don't be too hard : this is a social disease common with driven back
people...
LOL
Arthur
The Ghost In The Machine
<22326-3F2...@storefull-2152.public.lawson.webtv.net>:
*Our* mag flipped?
Then why don't we have to buy new compasses every 11 years?
tj Frazir
Flip the charge of the bar magnet .
I wana watch !
I say if the moon went north and south ,,once in awile NYNY will see
the moon flip ,,,
going north over NYNY ,,,stoping ,,,and comin back over NYNY like it
stoped and turned around.
But it did not change its orbit wile the earth turned .
As the earth is in the path the wheel spins the handle bars are turning
too ,,,once in a wile it will go up a side and back downthe same side
again.
Then some dumbass at nasa neads some grese or some jackass never even
said it anyone could havee as sam proves evry week with sci fi papers.
What briliant observation made such an idiotic thierory that is
unreplicatable.
The charge flipped my ass !! take the magnet and show us how.
More like ,,,the dumbasses said water would turn the oposit way under
the equator.
It turns the same direction ,,,your looking at the other end of te same
rotation still.
But thats not what the paper said.
The idiot in the paper wount let you know the water in the bucket dont
turn ,,the earth turns.
It just looks like the water in the bucket turns.
In fact the relitive water is turning over in the bucket ,,,but the
water wount turn .
The bucket sits on the turning earth .
In this case ,,,no magic ,,the charge is gong to be hard to flip in
that bar mag ! you dont have a coil ,,,you must stroke the charge in one
direction to keep moving th charge in the field.
BUT you cant turn the mag .
All I have to do is walk you to the other side of the table ,,,so it
looks fliped.
tj Frazir
,,we all want to admire the new method.
They probly wanted to ask congress for studdy money.
its a cluster fuck if I ever saw one
tj Frazir
They think the suns mag flips evry 11 years.
But with the bar magnet in front of them they refuse to replicate it
flip.
I replicated it with no hocu pocus .
As the earth went over th suns north pole as the sun tuned ,,,we saw
the mag same side twice.
Like if the moon went over the north pole and nyny saw it go up stop
and come back.
Nothing changed its speed or direction .
As far as any perm mag sudenly reversing and the was south pole now
north ,,,no way.
Its bad enough you didnt know the earths iron became charged over a
very long time wile iron moves in the field of the sun ....
if iron dont move in a field you wount get a magnet. The earth get its
magnet the only way magnets are made.
Ay dark shit ,,,stick that key board in yer hole and type some shit.
Richard
The Coulombic component of excess charge on a planet will 'not' cause a
deviation from the prescribed gravitationally induced orbital path,
simply because both are inverse square fields. The only effect of the
charge would be a miscalculation of the ratio (Sun mass)/(Planet mass).
OTOH the 'magnetic component' of force due to the relative motion of the
charges 'will' indeed produce an advance in perihelion, in that owing to
the nature of the magnetic field (it is relative-velocity dependent) the
effect will be equivalent to a periodic change in the net Coulombic
charge. I hold that this is indeed the cause of the deviation, though
not necessarily from an imbalance of charge population, but of an
imbalance of discrete-charge average speed within the masses. It is
exactly this asymmetry that causes, among other effects:
Ampere effect (parallel conductors)
The Hall effect
Galvanic effect
Peltier effect
P and N type material differences
Adhesion
Cohesion
and even Gravity itself
the list is endless
Richard Perry
The Ghost In The Machine
<13173-3F2...@storefull-2153.public.lawson.webtv.net>:
Ahem.
If the Earth's magfield flipped it would probably *stay* flipped
until it flipped again. (And it turns out it does flip, but at
a far longer cycle than the Sun's. Rocks show some interesting
characteristics traceable to the magnetic polarity reversal.
I'd have to look up the details, admittedly.)
And the Earth and Sun are a little more complicated than a
bar magnet. AFAICT the Earth is creating a magnetic field
because of a torque on the Earth causing the liquid core
to slosh in a characteristic fashion. However, I'd have
to look and/or simulate (I don't have the equipment), and
the processes deep in the Earth are but poorly understood.
(It's a pity we can't go down there and look around,
recent movies notwithstanding. The mantle is way too hot.)
Randy Poe
> If the Earth's magfield flipped it would probably *stay* flipped
> until it flipped again. (And it turns out it does flip, but at
> a far longer cycle than the Sun's. Rocks show some interesting
> characteristics traceable to the magnetic polarity reversal.
> I'd have to look up the details, admittedly.)
>
> And the Earth and Sun are a little more complicated than a
> bar magnet. AFAICT the Earth is creating a magnetic field
> because of a torque on the Earth causing the liquid core
> to slosh in a characteristic fashion. However, I'd have
> to look and/or simulate (I don't have the equipment), and
> the processes deep in the Earth are but poorly understood.
> (It's a pity we can't go down there and look around,
> recent movies notwithstanding. The mantle is way too hot.)
It's chaotic. A few times I've stumbled across some web site
with simulation results that claims they're the first to reproduce
the statistical behavior of these flips, and they required
a 3-D model of the core and its interactions with the field
to do it.
I didn't bookmark it, but I think these might be the guys:
http://www.psc.edu/science/Glatzmaier/glatzmaier.html
- Randy
tj Frazir
No notion of how it fliped.
The earth is the same as a bar magnet.
In fact it is a bar magnet.
The idots that claim the poles fliped can not replicate it.
But if the moon orbited around the N and S pole some times the moon
would change directions and go the other way and the moon would see out
poles flip wile we see it stop over the north pole and turn around and
go past us again in the other direction.
And the motion if the dipole at the Npole is
one point tuning a circle as it spins.
I say its not because the poles flip.
The entire thing is based of the circle of the axis.
I say it was impact energy .
The notion that the magnets in a motor could
flip the charge is nutz.
The sun chart looks lik we went over the suns N pole and we came down
the other side.
Evry 11 years we cross the N pole and come down the other side.
.
Henri Wilson
Good. I'm glad someone agrees with me.
Another nail in the GR coffin eh?
tj Frazir
your new way of making magnets.
Post it dumbass ,,,your wellcome to show how it fliped ,,,I showed
how it looks like it fliped but didt.